Published on 14 March 2022
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 39498/18
H.A. and Others
against Hungary
lodged on 21 August 2018
communicated on 21 February 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the confinement of the applicant family - parents with four children one of whom has severe disability - in the Tompa transit zone at the border of Hungary and Serbia between 10 July 2018 and 24 January 2019, 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 further complain about the allegedly inhuman or degrading conditions in which they were held during their stay in the transit zone and the lack of effective remedy in this regard. Furthermore, under Article 8 of the Convention the applicants complain that the conditions of their confinement in the transit zone resulted in the violation of their private and family life. Lastly, they allege that the respondent State violated Article 34 of the Convention by failing to comply with the Court’s interim measure indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court on 22 August 2018, asking the Government to ensure that the environment where the family was placed complied with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention and that the family was kept together, or otherwise to transfer the family unit to the Community Accommodation in Balassagyarmat.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was there a violation of Article 3 of the Convention because of the applicants’ living conditions and their treatment in the border transit zone, having regard to their particular circumstances (see R.R. and Others v. Hungary, no. 36037/17, §§ 48-52 and 58-65, 2 March 2021 and Popov v. France, nos. 39472/07 and 39474/07, §§ 89-105, 19 January 2012) including the family’s needs on account of the fifth applicant’s disability?
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 zone 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 taking also into account the fifth applicant’s specific needs (with respect to family life, see, mutatis mutandis, Popov v. France, nos. 39472/07 and 39474/07, §§ 132-148, 19 January 2012)?
6. Having regard to the alleged lack of measures taken by the respondent Government in response to the Court’s indication of 22 August 2018 under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, was there a hindrance by the State in the present case with the effective exercise of the applicants’ right of application, guaranteed by Article 34 of the Convention?
Appendix
List of applicants
No.
Applicant’s Name
Year of birth/registration
Nationality
Place of residence
1.
H.A.
1985
Iraqi
Magdeburg, Germany
2.
R.A.
1986
Iraqi
Magdeburg, Germany
3.
R.E.H.
2006
Iraqi
Magdeburg, Germany
4.
R.N.H.
2012
Iraqi
Magdeburg, Germany
5.
R.I.H.
2008
Iraqi
Magdeburg, Germany
6.
S.H.
2018
Iraqi
Magdeburg, Germany