SECOND SECTION

CASE OF PÁPICS AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

(Applications nos. 13727/20 and 15 others)

JUDGMENT
 

STRASBOURG

4 March 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Pápics and Others v. Hungary,

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Anja Seibert-Fohr, President,
 Davor Derenčinović,
 Gediminas Sagatys, judges,
and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the applications against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein;

the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning Article 3 of the Convention in application no. 49294/20 and of all remaining applications to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”) represented by their Agent, Mr Z. Tallódi, of the Ministry of Justice, and to declare the remainder of application no. 49249/20 inadmissible;

the parties’ observations;

the withdrawal of Mr P. Paczolay, the judge elected in respect of Hungary, from sitting in the case (Rule 28 § 3 of the Rules of Court);

Having deliberated in private on 4 February 2025,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1.  The cases concern the applicants’ conviction to life imprisonment without the possibility of release on parole and the fact that their mandatory pardon proceedings can take place only after they had served forty years of their life sentences. They complained that their sentences constituted inhuman and degrading punishment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

2.  The details regarding each applicant’s impugned final conviction to life imprisonment without release on parole are set out in the appendix.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

1. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

3.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

2. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

3.  The applicants complained that their sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release on parole constituted inhuman and degrading punishment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

4.  The Government requested the Court to declare the applications inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, without specifying the legal avenue which in their understanding could have constituted an effective remedy in the applicants’ case. Nonetheless, the Government referred in their submissions to sections 26-27 on constitutional complaints of Act No. CLI of 2011 on the Constitutional Court. Thus, in as much as the Government’s submission can be understood as considering that the applicants had failed to lodge a constitutional complaint against their sentencing judgments under sections 26 or 27 of Act no. CLI of 2011, it is to be noted that the Court has previously rejected the Government’s argument as to the effectiveness of a constitutional complaint in respect of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment without release on parole in the case of Sándor Varga and Others v. Hungary (nos. 39734/15 and 2 others, §§ 33-35, 17 June 2021). The Government have not provided any reason in the present case that could lead the Court to a different conclusion.

5.  Having regard to the above considerations, the Court concludes that the applicants’ complaints under Article 3 of the Convention cannot be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies; it therefore dismisses the Government’s preliminary objections in that connection.

6.  The Court further notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

7.  The general principles concerning the compatibility with Article 3 of the Convention of life imprisonment without the possibility of release on parole have been summarised in the case of T.P. and A.T. v. Hungary (nos. 37871/14 and 73986/14, § 38, 4 October 2016).

8.  In the T.P. and A.T. v. Hungary judgment (cited above), the Court held that the fact that the applicants could have their release considered, by way of the mandatory pardon procedure, only after they had served forty years of their life sentences was sufficient to conclude that the new Hungarian legislation, in force as of 2015, did not offer de facto reducibility of the applicants’ whole life sentences. That factor, coupled with the lack of sufficient procedural safeguards in the second part of the procedure, as provided for by the new legislation, led the Court to find a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (ibid., §§ 48 and 50; see also Sándor Varga and Others, cited above, §§ 48-49, 17 June 2021).

9.  The Court notes that the arguments raised by the Government in the instant case are similar to those already examined and rejected in T.P. and A.T. v. Hungary (cited above). The Government have not submitted any new circumstances which would lead the Court to depart from its previous findings that whole life sentences such as those of which the applicants complained cannot be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention.

10.  There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

11.  Mr Magyar (application no. 49294/20) did not submit a claim for just satisfaction in accordance with the requirements of Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on that account. The remainder of the applicants claimed 1,500 euros (EUR), each, in respect of non‑pecuniary damage. In addition, they claimed jointly EUR 17,780 for costs and expenses incurred before the Court.

12.  The Government found those claims excessive.

13.  The Court considers that its finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage suffered and accordingly makes no award to the remaining applicants under this head (compare also Sándor Varga and Others, cited above, § 55, and T.P. and A.T. v. Hungary, cited above, § 54).

14.  Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award the remaining applicants the sums indicated in the appended table in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the Court, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the applications admissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
4. Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants;
5. Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, with the exception of the applicant in application no. 49294/20, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to these applicants;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 March 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Dorothee von Arnim Anja Seibert-Fohr
 Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of cases