On October 10, 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a critical ruling in the case “Validity Foundation on behalf of T.J. v. Hungary”, addressing the death of a woman with a severe intellectual disability who had been living in a state-run social care home. The Court found that the Hungarian state had violated both Article 2 (the right to life) and Article 34 (right of individual petition) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This case highlights the essential role of strategic litigation in holding governments accountable for violations of the rights of persons with disabilities.
The Facts of the Case
The case centers on T.J., a woman born in 1973, who was diagnosed with a severe intellectual disability from a young age. Unable to communicate verbally and prone to occasional aggressive behavior, T.J. was institutionalized at the age of 10, in 1983, at the Topház social care institution in Göd, Hungary. For over three decades, T.J. lived in this state-run facility, which became infamous for its substandard living conditions and neglect of residents’ well-being.
In 2017, the Validity Foundation—an NGO that advocates for the rights of persons with disabilities—visited Topház and discovered the appalling conditions in which T.J. and other residents were living. T.J. was found constantly tied to her bed, malnourished, and covered in injuries. She had wounds on her forehead and a black eye, was emaciated, and was largely unresponsive. These injuries were never fully explained, but Validity’s report highlighted the excessive and unlawful use of restraints, as well as the lack of adequate medical and therapeutic care.
Over the years, T.J. suffered multiple physical injuries, including wounds on her face, torso, and limbs, and experienced severe weight loss. In 2015, 2016, and 2018, she was diagnosed with bacterial pneumonia. In 2018, she was hospitalized again with pneumonia and died on August 25, 2018. The autopsy confirmed the cause of death as bacterial pneumonia, but the Validity Foundation argued that T.J.’s deteriorating condition and death were the direct result of long-term neglect and inadequate care in the social care home.
The Court’s Findings: Violations of Articles 2 and 34 of the Convention
The European Court of Human Rights ruled that Hungary violated Article 2 of the European Convention, which guarantees the right to life, and Article 34, which ensures the right to individual petition to the Court.
Violation of Article 2: The Right to Life
The Court found that the Hungarian state failed to protect T.J.’s right to life in two key ways:
- Failure to Provide Adequate Care: The Court determined that Hungary had not provided the necessary medical and therapeutic care to prevent T.J.’s health from deteriorating. Despite her evident vulnerability, T.J. was subjected to continuous physical restraints, often tied to her bed, and did not receive proper nutritional or medical support. The social care home was understaffed, and there was inadequate supervision, which led to poor overall care and increased risks to residents’ health. The domestic authorities were fully aware of the poor conditions in the facility, as several reports from the Ministry of Human Resources and the Hungarian Commissioner for Fundamental Rights had highlighted the inhuman and degrading treatment within the institution.
- Failure to Prevent Death: The Court emphasized that, as a resident of a state-run facility, T.J. was under the exclusive control of the State, which had a duty to ensure her safety and well-being. T.J.’s vulnerability as a person with a severe intellectual disability made her dependent on the state for all aspects of her care. Despite clear signs of neglect, including severe malnourishment and repeated injuries, the authorities failed to take any meaningful steps to protect her life. The long-term neglect T.J. experienced, coupled with inadequate medical attention, led to her contracting pneumonia and ultimately resulted in her death. The Court found that the state had failed to prevent the foreseeable risk to her life.
- Inadequate Investigation: After T.J.’s death, the authorities failed to conduct a thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding her treatment and death. Although the autopsy determined that pneumonia was the direct cause of death, the Court noted that the investigation did not examine the broader context of her care in the institution, which Validity Foundation argued had contributed to her untimely death. The investigation failed to address the systemic issues in the care home, such as the overuse of restraints, poor living conditions, and lack of adequate staffing, all of which had a direct impact on T.J.’s health.
The Court concluded that Hungary had violated the substantive and procedural obligations under Article 2 by failing to protect T.J.’s life and failing to conduct an effective investigation into her death.
Violation of Article 34: Right of Individual Petition
Article 34 of the Convention guarantees the right of individuals to bring a case to the European Court of Human Rights. In this case, the Validity Foundation lodged the application on behalf of T.J., as she had no capacity to do so herself. Hungary contested the standing of Validity Foundation to act on T.J.’s behalf, arguing that her legal guardian or next of kin should have been responsible for such action. However, the Court recognized the exceptional circumstances in this case.
The Court found that T.J.’s legal guardian had been appointed by the state, but there was no evidence that the guardian had taken any steps to protect T.J.’s rights. In fact, the guardian visited the institution infrequently and had no meaningful communication with T.J. Moreover, neither her guardian nor her family had shown any interest in her situation after the Validity report was made public or after the Hungarian Commissioner for Fundamental Rights highlighted the abusive conditions in Topház.
In light of these facts, the Court determined that Validity Foundation was acting in T.J.’s best interests and had made serious attempts to advocate for her rights before her death. Therefore, the Court ruled that Validity had standing under Article 34 to bring the case on T.J.’s behalf, recognizing the vulnerability of the deceased and the serious nature of the allegations.
Why the Court Did Not Examine Articles 13 and 14
In its ruling, the Court also declined to examine the complaints under Articles 13 and 14, taken in conjunction with Article 2. This decision is based on the fact that the Court had already found substantial violations of Article 2, which sufficiently covered the core issues of the case.
- Article 13 (right to an effective remedy): This article ensures that individuals have access to a remedy if their rights under the Convention are violated. In this case, the lack of a proper investigation into T.J.’s death could have been examined under Article 13. However, since the Court already found that Hungary failed to conduct an effective investigation under Article 2, further examination under Article 13 was deemed unnecessary and redundant.
- Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination): This article guarantees that all rights and freedoms in the Convention are enjoyed without discrimination. The complaint under Article 14 was based on the fact that T.J. had been treated differently and neglected due to her disability. However, since the Court had already ruled that the State’s failure to protect her right to life under Article 2 applied to all individuals, including those with disabilities, addressing the same issue under Article 14 was not necessary.
By applying the principle of judicial economy, the Court decided that examining these complaints would not add anything substantial to the ruling, as the violations under Article 2 fully covered the essence of the case.
The Role of Strategic Litigation in Defending Disability Rights
This case is a clear example of how strategic litigation can be a powerful tool for holding states accountable when the fundamental rights of persons with disabilities are violated. Through their persistent efforts, the Validity Foundation not only sought justice for T.J., but also exposed the systemic failures in Hungary’s social care system.
ENIL (European Network on Independent Living) fully supports this type of strategic litigation, which is essential to ensuring that governments comply with their obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). ENIL is particularly focused on advocating for the deinstitutionalization of persons with disabilities and the creation of community-based services that respect individuals’ rights to live independently and with dignity.
The T.J. case serves as a stark reminder of the dangers of institutionalization and the need for states to prioritize the development of inclusive, community-based support systems. The judgment against Hungary is a significant victory for the rights of persons with disabilities and sets a strong precedent for future cases challenging institutional neglect and inhumane treatment.
A Call to Action
ENIL urges all European states to fulfill their obligations under international human rights law, including the CRPD, by ensuring that persons with disabilities receive the care and support they need in inclusive environments. Institutions like Topház, where individuals are isolated and subjected to neglect, must be replaced with systems that empower people with disabilities to live in their communities with the appropriate levels of support.
Strategic litigation, such as the case of T.J., not only brings justice to individuals who have suffered human rights violations but also drives systemic change by challenging outdated and harmful practices. ENIL will continue to support and promote efforts like these to create a Europe where all persons with disabilities can live independently, with full respect for their human rights and dignity.
