Published on 23 May 2022
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 17089/19
S.AB. and S.AR. against Hungary
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 3 May 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the confinement of the applicants in the Hungarian transit zones at the border with Serbia pending the examination of their asylum requests and – following the rejection of these requests – the alien policing (expulsion) procedure. They invoke Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. Moreover, relying on Articles 3 and 8 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 zones, the violation of their private and/or family life in such conditions and the lack of an effective remedy in this regard.
The applicants’ details and specific circumstances are set out in the appendix.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in the border transit zones in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention pending the asylum and alien policing procedures (compare R.R. and Others v. Hungary, no. 36037/17, §§ 74-92, 2 March 2021 and Nabil and Others v. Hungary, no. 62116/12, §§ 26‑35, 22 September 2015)?
2. 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)?
3. 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, as regards the detention pending expulsion, Popov v. France, nos. 39472/07 and 39474/07, §§ 89-105, 19 January 2012)?
4. Was there a violation of the applicants’ private and/or family life under Article 8 of the Convention on account of their confinement and treatment in the border transit zones (with respect to family life see, mutatis mutandis, Popov v. France, nos. 39472/07 and 39474/07, §§ 132-148, 19 January 2012)?
5. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their above complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
APPENDIX
List of applications
No.
Appl. no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
Place and period of detention complained of, vulnerable status/special needs of the applicant
1.
17089/19
S.AB. and S.AR. v. Hungary
29/03/2019
S.AB.
1982
Győr, Hungary
Iranian
S.AR.
2009
Győr, Hungary
Iranian
Barbara POHÁRNOK
Röszke transit zone
05/12/2018 – 21/05/2020
Food deprivation for three days
Child
2.
18581/19
A.P. v. Hungary
05/04/2019
1982
Siófok, Hungary
Iranian
Gábor GYŐZŐ
Röszke transit zone
24/09/2018 – 08/10/2019
Food deprivation for two days
3.
53528/19
O.Q. v. Hungary
05/10/2019
1998
Amsterdam, Holland
Syrian
Barbara POHÁRNOK
Tompa transit zone
19/07/2018 – 05/04/2019
Food deprivation for seven days
Mental health issues