Communicated on 31 January 2020
Published on 17 February 2020
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 64050/16
W.A. against Hungary
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the applicants’ removal to Serbia, following the rejection of their asylum requests as inadmissible on the grounds that Serbia was to be considered a “safe third country”.
The applicants complain that their expulsion to Serbia took place as a result of a flawed asylum procedure and exposed them to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, because (a) there was a risk that they would not be allowed access to an asylum procedure in Serbia, (b) there was a risk of chain-refoulement, and (c) there was no prospect of access to adequate reception facilities. They also complain under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 that the domestic remedies concerning their expulsion were ineffective.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Did the Hungarian authorities’ decision to consider Serbia as a “safe third country” and to order the applicants’ expulsion towards that country expose them to a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary [GC], no. 47287/15, §§ 163-164, 21 November 2019)?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Represented by
1
64050/16
W.A. v. Hungary
02/11/2016
Barbara POHÁRNOK
2
64558/16
M.C. v. Hungary
04/11/2016
Barbara POHÁRNOK
3
66064/16
M.H. v. Hungary
04/11/2016
Barbara POHÁRNOK
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy