Judgment 82939/17 27166/19

Applicant name TAKÓ AND VISZTNÉ ZÁMBÓ
Applicant type Natural person (prisoner)
Number of applicants 2
CountryHUNGARY
Application no. 82939/17 27166/19
Date 12/10/2023
Judges Gilberto Felici, President,
 Péter Paczolay,
 Raffaele Sabato
Institution Court
Type Judgment
Outcome Art. 8 Violation
Reason Not necessary (preventing disorder and crime and protecting the health and rights of others)
Type of privacy Relational privacy
Keywords Family visit
Facts of the caseThe case concerns the applicants’ complaint under Article 8 of the Convention about the physical separation from their relative with a glass partition during their visits to him in prison. The first applicant, Ms Takó, is the wife of the prisoner and the second applicant, Ms Visztné Zámbó, is the mother.
AnalysisThe ECtHR quickly finds that there has been an interference, that this had a legal basis and served the prevention disorder and crime and protectiong of the health and rights of others. Because the Court finds that the measures complained of was a matter of routine rather than a reaction to any specific security risks present in the applicants’ contact with the prisoner, the Court concludes that the restrictions imposed by the authorities on the applicants’ visiting rights did not strike a fair balance between the requirements of the regime in place for “high‑security inmates” on the one hand, and the applicants’ Convention right to respect for their family life on the other.
Other Article violation? No
Damage awarded (a) that the respondent State is to pay each applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 3,600 (three thousand six hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses;
Documents Judgment