Published on 14 March 2022
FIRST SECTION
Applications nos. 9203/18 and 32660/18
F.O. and Others against Hungary
and K.K.S. against Hungary
lodged on 8 July 2018 and 16 February 2018 respectively
communicated on 21 February 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the confinement of the applicants, amongst them minors, in the Hungarian transit zones at the border with Serbia pending the examination of their asylum requests. They invoke Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. Moreover, relying on Article 3 of the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13, they complain about the allegedly inhuman or degrading conditions in which they were held during their stay in the transit zone and the lack of an effective remedy in this regard. Lastly, under Article 8 of the Convention the applicants complain that their confinement in the transit zones resulted in the violation of their private and family life.
The applicants’ details and specific circumstances are set out in the appendix.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was there a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ living conditions and their treatment in the border transit zones, having regard to their particular circumstances (see R.R. and Others v. Hungary, no. 36037/17, §§ 48-65, 2 March 2021, and Popov v. France, nos. 39472/07 and 39474/07, §§ 89-105, 19 January 2012)?
2. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their above complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
3. Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in the border transit zones in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see R.R. and Others v. Hungary, no. 36037/17, §§ 74-92, 2 March 2021)?
4. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective procedure by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see R.R. and Others v. Hungary, no. 36037/17, §§ 97-99, 2 March 2021)?
5. Was there a violation of the applicants’ private and family life under Article 8 of the Convention on account of their confinement and living conditions in the border transit zone (with respect to family life, see, mutatis mutandis, Popov v. France, nos. 39472/07 and 39474/07, §§ 132-148, 19 January 2012)?
List of cases
No.
Appl. no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
Place and period of detention, vulnerable status/special needs of the applicant
1.
9203/18
F.O. and Others v. Hungary
16/02/2018
F.O.
1987
Herxheim, Germany
Afghan
S.O.
2012
Herxheim, Germany
Afghan
K.O.
2017
Herxheim, Germany
Afghan
Tamás FAZEKAS
Röszke transit zone
11/07/2017 – 17/08/2017
Food deprivation for seven days, lack of medical assistance (mental health issues)
Minor
Food deprivation for seven days, lack of medical assistance
Minor
2.
32660/18
K.K.S. v. Hungary
08/07/2018
K.K.S.
2002
Fót, Hungary
Afghan
Tamás FAZEKAS
Röszke transit zone
19/10/2017 – 08/01/2018
Unaccompanied minor