Published on 3 July 2023
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 53952/22
A.S.A.
against Hungary
lodged on 17 November 2022
communicated on 13 June 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicant’s removal from Hungary. He and another twelve Syrian nationals entered Hungary clandestinely on 9 July 2022. On the same day they were involved in a serious traffic accident, leaving the applicant severely injured. After he had woken up from coma in the hospital, he informed the police officers of his wish to seek international protection in Hungary. On 19 July 2022 the applicant was released from the hospital and taken – handcuffed and on leash – to a police station, where he spent several hours in a short-term detention. During his interactions with police, he repeatedly expressed his wish to request international protection and complained of pain related to his injuries. During the ensuing night, the police took the applicant and another forty aliens to the external side of the border fence and made them go to Serbia. The removal was based on Section 5 (1b) of the State Border Act.
The applicant complains that he was part of the collective expulsion, in breach of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention. He furthermore complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was removed to Serbia, without any assessment of the consequences of his removal for his rights under that provision and in breach of its procedural obligation. He also complains under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 that he had no effective remedy at his disposal as regards his removal.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant expelled from Hungary collectively, in breach of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention? In particular, did the applicant have a genuine and effective possibility of submitting arguments against his removal and were those arguments examined in an appropriate manner by the authorities of the respondent State (see Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, § 248, 15 December 2016)?
2. At the time of the applicant’s removal, what possibilities for applying for international protection were available to aliens present irregularly within the territory of Hungary? Could such aliens apply for international protection without leaving the territory of Hungary? If so, under what conditions?
3. Was it possible at the time of the applicant’s entry in Hungary to apply for international protection at the border crossing points?
4. What were the modalities of the preliminary international-protection procedure at the Hungarian embassy in Serbia and how did it work in practice at the time of the applicant’s removal? Pending their request with the Hungarian embassy, what was the position of the international-protection seekers (nature of their stay in Serbia, assistance provided to them etc.)?
5. Did the respondent State comply with its obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to duly assess the risks of treatment contrary to that provision before removing the applicant from Hungary to Serbia (see, among others, Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary [GC], no. 47287/15, in particular §§ 129-134, 141, 148 and 163, 21 November 2019, and Tarakhel v. Switzerland [GC], no. 29217/12, §§ 93‑122, ECHR 2014 (extracts)?
6. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 4 of Protocol No. 4, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Shahzad v. Hungary, no. 12625/17, §§ 77-79, 8 July 2021)?