E.A. AND H.A.A. v. GREECE

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 14969/20
E.A. and H.A.A.
against Greece

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 3 July 2025 as a Committee composed of:

 Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,
 Kateřina Šimáčková,
 Stéphane Pisani, judges,
and Sophie Piquet, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 14969/20) against the Hellenic Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 24 March 2020 by two Syrian nationals, Ms E. A. and Mr H. A. A. (“the applicants”), who were born in 1989 and 2020 respectively, live in Samos and were represented by Ms J. Fleischer, a lawyer practising in Berlin;

the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning Articles 3 and/or 8, and Article 34 of the Convention to the Greek Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent’s delegates, Ms O. Patsopoulou, Ms A. Dimitrakopoulou, Ms S. Trekli, and Ms Z. Chatzipavlou, senior advisors at the State Legal Council and Mr A. Zacheilas, a legal representative at the State Legal Council, and the Greek Agent, Mrs N. Marioli, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;

the decision not to have the applicants’ names disclosed;

the decision to give priority to the application (Rule 41 of the Rules of Court);

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1.  The application concerns the living conditions of the applicants at the Samos Reception and Identification Centre (RIC). The first applicant is a woman who was pregnant at the time of lodging her application with the Court and the second applicant is the baby to whom the first applicant gave birth on 2 May 2020.

2.  The first applicant arrived with her husband in Samos on 29 October 2019, while she was pregnant. On the same date she expressed her wish to apply for international protection but it was not formally registered until 27 May 2020.

3.  On 21 November 2019 she was identified as vulnerable on account of her pregnancy. She lived in a tent outside the Samos RIC. After she gave birth in the hospital, the applicants were returned to the tent outside the RIC where they remained until their transfer to the mainland on 7 July 2020.

4.  On 24 March 2020 the first applicant lodged a request for an interim measure with the Court, which was granted. It was indicated to the Greek Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, 1) to transfer the applicant to an appropriate place, where she would have timely and unobstructed access to adequate healthcare compatible with her state of health, 2) to guarantee the applicant living conditions compatible with her state of health and 3) to prioritise the assessment of her vulnerability status. On 19 May 2020 the interim measure was reiterated and extended to the second applicant, and it was indicated to the Greek Government to guarantee the applicant and her newborn baby living conditions compatible with Article 3 of the Convention, having regard to their vulnerability and specific needs as a mother with a newborn baby, until 13 June 2020.

5.  On 7 July 2020 the applicants were transferred to the mainland to an accommodation structure (a hotel) in Kastoria and on 26 November 2020, following the applicants’ refusal to be accommodated in an apartment, they were transferred to an accommodation structure (a camp) in Thebes.

6.  On 17 March 2021 the applicants were recognised as refugees and received residence permits.

7.  The applicants relied on Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention regarding their living conditions at the Samos RIC and on Article 34 on grounds of non‑compliance with the Court’s decisions on interim measures.

8.  The first applicant submitted that she had informed the authorities about her pregnancy upon her arrival. On 21 November 2019, after a medical assessment, the authorities had been made aware of her pregnancy which was further confirmed on 16 December 2019 when she underwent a medical examination at Samos General Hospital.

9.  The first applicant had not been provided with housing and had been living in a tent outside the RIC in dire weather conditions. The first applicant complained of overcrowding and of inadequate sanitary and hygienic facilities. The first applicant had to make regular use of the hygienic facilities in view of her condition. She added that the food had been of poor quality and not suitable for a pregnant woman. Upon her arrival she had not been provided with material assistance.

10.  After fires broke out on 26 and 27 April 2020, the situation of the first applicant deteriorated a few days before she gave birth. The applicant’s tent was destroyed and she slept on the ground. The first applicant feared for her safety but had to return to the area outside the RIC without being provided with material assistance and bought a tent with her own limited financial means.

11.  After the first applicant had given birth by caesarean section on 2 May 2020 she was discharged from hospital on 5 May 2020 and sent back to the tent outside the RIC with the second applicant.

12.  Τhe first applicant acknowledged that on 31 March 2020 she had been offered a place in a container inside the RIC, which she refused. She submitted that the living conditions there had been inadequate for a woman at an advanced stage of pregnancy, as, inter alia, the container was overpopulated: notably nine (9) persons were living in the facility and their placement would have exceeded its capacity. Moreover, the applicant was asked to share one room with a family of three, resulting in a lack of privacy. She added that no mattress was provided and the condition of the sanitary facilities had been unhygienic as they were used by numerous residents other than those of the container. Lastly, the container was offered at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, and while it was already very difficult to practise social distancing in an overcrowded camp, it would have been impossible to do so inside the container. Therefore, the applicant’s refusal to be accommodated in the container was justified.

13.  The first applicant repeatedly addressed the authorities and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in view of being provided with appropriate living conditions, but to no avail.

14.  The first applicant submitted that her request for international protection was not formally registered until 27 May 2020.

15.  The first applicant further complained of inadequate access to maternal healthcare as she had, in principle, been provided with assistance by Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), owing to the understaffed medical unit at the RIC that had referred her to MSF. However, she acknowledged having been attended at Samos General Hospital. She added that she had not received post-natal healthcare at the camp or the hospital after being discharged.

16.  The applicants argued that they had been in need of a reception setting that accommodated their particular needs as a pregnant woman and a newborn child, such as adequate accommodation, sanitary facilities, nutrition and medical treatment.

17.  The Government submitted that Samos RIC was an open hospitality structure. Temporary shelters had been constructed by the RIC’s residents near the area because of overpopulation. During the applicant’s stay, the RIC’s population had ranged between 6,335 and 7,453, while the RIC had a capacity of 648 beds. The population had free access to the medical and psychosocial support division located in the Samos RIC. Within the RIC there were 35 communal toilets, and the residents were offered food and water as well as a monetary allowance.

18.  The first applicant arrived on 29 October 2019. On the same date her intention to apply for international protection was recorded and on 6 November 2019 it was forwarded to the Samos Regional Asylum Office (RAO).

19.  On 21 November 2019 the first applicant was identified as vulnerable on account of her pregnancy and on 16 December 2019 she underwent a prenatal examination at Samos General hospital, as indicated in the annexed document issued on the same day.

20.  The first applicant was staying with her husband in a tent outside the RIC. However, the authorities, considering her vulnerability, on 10 January 2020 requested the UNHCR that the applicants be transferred to a hostel in Samos, but the request remained pending. They added that the UNHCR was responsible for managing accommodation and prioritising cases.

21.  On 27 March 2020 the authorities lifted the geographical restriction and further referred the applicant to an appropriate accommodation structure on the mainland on account of her vulnerability.

22.  On 31 March 2020 the first applicant was offered accommodation in a container (capacity for nine persons with air conditioning) inside the RIC, which she refused.

23.  On 2 May 2020 the applicant gave birth in hospital to the second applicant by caesarean section. She was in hospital from 30 April to 5 May 2020. On 20 May 2020 she was provided with material assistance.

24.  On 1 July 2020 it was decided that the applicants be transferred to the mainland in the open hospitality structure hotel in Neos Marmaras, Kastoria. The transfer took place on 7 July 2020.

25.  On 26 November 2020, after the applicants’ refusal to be integrated in a housing programme under which the family would be accommodated in an apartment and provided with other support services, the family was transferred to a structure in Thebes.

26.  As regards the applicants’ allegations related to the repercussions of fires that broke out in April 2020, the RIC authorities had acted immediately and the evacuation of the area had been ordered without delay. All residents had been directed to a safe distance outside the RIC and had been given notice to return following reassurances provided by the competent authorities.

27.  The Government noted that in 2019 Greece had been confronted with a new migration crisis. The reception system had been under pressure, as it had become difficult to satisfy the particular needs of a large number of people. In addition, the management of the situation became even more complicated for the authorities with the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic. In particular, on 20 March 2020 an Act of Legislative Content was published providing inter alia the suspension of the possibility of submission of asylum applications for one month (from 1 March 2020). In addition, they further submitted that as of 13 March 2020, the Asylum Service had suspended public service in accordance with the ministerial decision issued within the context of Covid-19.

28.  In the Government’s view and despite the above situation, the applicants had, throughout their stay, received adequate meals and water and her medical screening had taken place promptly.

29.  The Government pointed out that pregnant women are explicitly recognized by the Greek domestic law as a vulnerable group pursuant to Article 20 of Law no. 4540/2018, as subsequently amended by Article 58 of Law no. 4636/2019.

30.  The Government further argued that the applicants did not sustain any kind of abuse during the short period of time they resided in the RIC, even if the reception and living conditions had not been fully in line with the reception provisions owing to the massive number of arrivals in that period.

31.  The RIC’s capacity had been exceeded in the period under consideration and it had been impossible to place the applicants directly in any of the centre’s accommodation spaces, but they had been housed within a reasonable period of time.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

32.  The Government submitted that the applicants could not claim to be victims as their reception conditions had been adequate and satisfactory. As they refused to be integrated in a housing programme, within which they would be accommodated in an apartment, they were either solely or in part responsible for any violation that allegedly followed, and the Government invited the Court to dismiss the application as inadmissible under Articles 3 and 34 of the Convention.

33.  The Government also noted that the submission of misleading information may constitute an abuse of the right of application if no sufficient explanation is provided in this regard. They attested that the reception and accommodation framework in place for asylum-seekers also requires the parties’ cooperation. They pointed out that the applicants’ conduct was inconsistent because, while they complained of inadequate reception conditions, they twice refused accommodation offered to them, first in a container and then in an apartment on the mainland within a housing programme where the living conditions were arguably better. The Government invited the Court to reject the application as inadmissible.

34.  Lastly, the Government argued that the applicants had not submitted any written request to the competent authorities or domestic courts and had therefore failed to exhaust domestic remedies.

35.  The applicants disagreed with the objections concerning the alleged lack of victim status and abusive exercise of their right. As regards the non‑exhaustion of domestic remedies, they replied that the Government were referring to theoretical remedies. They noted that their particular situation had been identified by the authorities and when it came to persons wholly dependent on the host State, Article 3 of the Convention did not require any prior written request to be submitted.

36.  The Court considers that the Government’s objections of lack of victim status and abusive exercise of the right of petition relate to the substance of the applicants’ complaints. It thus decides to join these objections to the merits of the case (see paragraphs 39 to 54 below).

37.  With regard to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Court reiterates that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies must be applied with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism. It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible and capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant’s complaints, and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 76-77, ECHR 1999-V, and O.R. v. Greece, no. 24650/19, §§ 45 - 49, 23 January 2024).

38.  Having regard to the fact that no relevant case-law has been provided by the Government and that the applicants’ accommodation needs were assertively known to the authorities at least as from 21 November 2019 until 7 July 2020 for the first applicant (see paragraphs 19 and 3 above) and as from 5 May 2020 (date of discharge from the hospital) until 7 July 2020 for the second applicant (see paragraphs 23 and 3 above) but were not addressed, the Government’s objection must be dismissed.

39.  The Government submitted that the application should be dismissed as inadmissible arguing that the applicants lacked victim status and for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. They added that the submission of insufficient information may constitute an abuse of the right of petition. The applicants disagreed with the Government’s objections.

40.  The Court finds that it is not necessary to reply to the Government’s objections as, in any event, the complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention are inadmissible for the following reasons.

41.  The Government submitted that the situation had not attained the level of severity for it to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention (see Khlaifia and Others v. Italy, [GC], no. 16483/12, § 159, 15 December 2016).

42.  The applicants stated that their particular needs as a pregnant woman and a mother with a newborn had not been accommodated at the reception setting in the RIC.

43.  The Court recalls that according to its well-established case-law, ill‑treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of that level is relative and depends on all the circumstances of the case, principally the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim.

44.  The general principles regarding the State’s obligations vis-à-vis refugees or migrants placed in designated zones or centres are well-developed in the Court’s case-law (see Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, §§ 158-69, 15 December 2016; Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary [GC], no. 47287/15, §§ 186-88, 21 November 2019; and R.R. and Others v. Hungary, no. 36037/17, §§ 48-50, 2 March 2021). The Court reiterates that allegations of treatment in contravention of Article 3 of the Convention must be supported by appropriate evidence. To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 121, ECHR 2000-IV, with further references and also S.B and others v. Serbia, no. 22463/17 §§ 31 to 34, 27 August 2024).

45.  Moreover, the Court has already had occasion to note that the States which form the external borders of the European Union are currently experiencing considerable difficulties in coping with the increasing influx of migrants and asylum-seekers. It does not underestimate the burden and pressure this situation places on the States concerned (see M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, § 223, ECHR 2011).

46.  However, having regard to the absolute character of the rights secured by Article 3, that cannot absolve a State of its obligations under that provision (see Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], §§ 158 and 184, cited above).

47.  That being said, while the constraints inherent in a migration crisis cannot, in themselves, be used to justify a breach of Article 3, the Court is of the view that it would certainly be artificial to examine the facts of the case without considering the general context in which those facts arose. In its assessment, the Court will thus bear in mind, together with other factors, that the undeniable difficulties and inconveniences endured by the applicants stemmed to a significant extent from the situation of extreme difficulty confronting the Greek authorities at the relevant time (Khlaifia and Others, cited above, § 185; J.R. and Others v. Greece, no. 22696/16, § 143, 25 January 2018, and B.G. and Others v. France, no. 63141/13, § 73, 10 September 2020). As the Government states, the facts of the present case occurred during a period in which Greece experienced an exceptional and sudden increase in migration flows (see paragraphs 17 and 27 above; see, mutatis mutandis, J.R. and Others v. Greece, no. 22696/16, § 138, 25 January 2018).

48.  The Court takes note of the applicants’ situation, notably as regards the first applicant on account of her pregnancy and subsequently as a mother with a newborn, and as regards the second applicant on account of his age (see paragraph 1 above).

49.  The Court observes that the applicants resided at the Samos RIC from 29 October 2019 until 7 July 2020 (for the first applicant) and from 5 May 2020 until 7 July 2020 (for the second applicant), when they were transferred to an accommodation structure (a hotel) in Kastoria on the mainland (see paragraphs  3 and 24 above).

50.  The Court further takes into account the repercussions of the Covid‑19 outbreak and the efforts made by the authorities to manage the crisis (see paragraph 27 above). It further takes note of the efforts to refer the first applicant for accommodation on 10 January 2020 as a subsequent development of her pregnancy, of which the Government became aware on 21 November 2019 (see paragraph 20 above) and of the fact that on 27 March 2020 the geographical restriction was lifted and she was further referred for accommodation (see paragraph 21 above). More importantly, the Court cannot ignore the fact that the authorities provided the first applicant with accommodation to a container on 31 March 2020 and that she refused this offer without sufficiently strong and reasonable justification. Such unsubstantiated refusal leads the Court to think that the conditions the first applicant lived in did not amount, in her own opinion, to a treatment reaching the threshold of article 3 or a fight for survival, since a housing offer which may have appeared unsatisfactory, but of which it is neither claimed not evidenced that it would breach per se the conditions of this article, was not seized to escape an allegedly unbearable situation.

51.  The Court also adds that the Greek authorities had taken into consideration the applicant’s condition as regards receipt of medical treatment (prenatal monitoring and medical assistance during delivery) as well as post partum medical care.

52.  In these circumstances, and having regard to the parties’ submissions and all the material in its possession, the Court finds that, while, as the Government admits, the reception and living conditions had not been fully in line with the reception provisions owing to the massive number of arrivals in that period, the situation complained of in the specific circumstances described by the applicants did not amount to ill-treatment that attained the requisite level of severity to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention. It further notes that the applicants’ allegations do not disclose an appearance of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

53.  In the light of the above, the Court concludes that the complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention must therefore be rejected as manifestly ill‑founded in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

54.  The applicants also complained under Article 34 of the Convention. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its findings above, the Court concludes that the complaint under Article 34 of the Convention must therefore be rejected as manifestly ill‑founded in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 4 September 2025.

 Sophie Piquet Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström
 Acting Deputy Registrar President