Lakatos v. Hungary

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 57504/16 Sándor LAKATOS against Hungary

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 4 October 2022 as a Committee composed of:

Alena Poláčková , President,

Péter Paczolay ,

Davor Derenčinović , judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 57504/16) against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 29 September 2016 by a Hungarian national, Mr Sándor Lakatos, who was born in 1969 and lives in Vác (“the applicant”), who was represented by Mr D.A. Karsai, a lawyer practising in Budapest;

the decision to give notice of the application to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Z. Tallódi, Ministry of Justice;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1 The applicant, prosecuted and detained for participating in a criminal gang that had perpetrated numerous burglaries throughout the country, was banned from maintaining contact with his partner and his daughter in the period from 10 August 2015 to 6 April 2016. His four consecutive requests to this end were denied, the prosecutor’s office being of the view that the contact would jeopardise the successful conduct of the investigation.

2 The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention about the refusal of contact with his partner and daughter for a period of eight months.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

3 The Government pointed out that the impugned decisions were subject to a complaint to the superior (county) prosecutor, a legal avenue the applicant had not availed himself of. In any event, in their view, the measure complained of was justified under Article 8 § 2 of the Convention.

4 The applicant disagreed.

5 The Court notes that each decision in question contained a provision pointing to the possibility of lodging a complaint to the superior authority, the Nógrád County Public Prosecutor’s Office.

6 A one-time hierarchical complaint within the Hungarian public prosecution system to the county prosecutor has already been found to be an effective remedy to be exhausted (see Bethlen v. Hungary , no. 26692/95, Commission decision of 10 April 1997, unreported; and, a contrario , Haász and Szabó v. Hungary , nos. 11327/14 and 11613/14, §§ 36-37, 13 October 2015).

7 Since the applicant failed to pursue such a complaint, the application must be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 10 November 2022.

Liv Tigerstedt Alena Poláčková Deputy Registrar President