BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 28973/11
Zoltán HANYU
against Hungary
lodged on 19 November 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Zoltán Hanyu, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1987 and lives in Aranyosapáti. He is represented before the Court by his mother, Mrs Z. Hanyu.

A.  The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant is innately deaf and dumb and mentally challenged (imbecillitas). He is 90% disabled.

Between 10 April and 4 July 2011 the applicant, a multiple recidivist offender with the most recent conviction dating from 2 November 2009, was detained on remand on charges of mugging. His mother submits that at his first interrogation, no lawyer or sign interpreter was present. She moreover states that the conditions of detention were in general inapt to the applicant’s conditions and that he was molested, also sexually, by the other inmates.

On the latter date (4 July 2011), he was placed under house arrest, the Vásárosnamény District Court having noted that he did not know any sign language and was able to communicate only with his mother.

On 20 June 2011 the applicant was indicted for robbery. His mental condition was noted by the prosecution. A public defence counsel and a sign interpreter were appointed for him.

While detained, the applicant was examined by a forensic psychiatrist. On 30 June 2011 the expert gave the opinion that the applicant’s faculties were to a large extent reduced and that he should be placed under partial guardianship. This was done by the Vásárosnamény District Court on 27 September 2011.

The criminal proceedings are still pending.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that the circumstances of his detention as such amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, in view of his condition. He also submits under Article 5 § 1 that his pre-trial detention was unjustified and, under Article 5 § 2, that he was not properly informed of the charges against him, on account of his impaired faculties. He also complains about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him, invoking Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.  Was the applicant informed, in a language which he understood and in an apt manner, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him, as required by Article 5 § 2 of the Convention? In particular, were the authorities aware of his impaired faculties when detaining him and did they take appropriate measures?

2.  Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, given his condition and the allegedly inapt circumstances of his detention?