Published on 30 June 2025
FIFTH SECTION
Applications nos. 32295/24 and 5455/25
Z.A. and Others against Cyprus
and E.A. and Others against Cyprus
lodged on 3 February 2025 and 30 January 2025 respectively
communicated on 12 June 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the alleged pushback of the applicants to the buffer zone in Cyprus preventing their access to asylum procedures, and their stay in the buffer zone for prolonged periods in unsuitable conditions before their eventual transfer to reception centres where their asylum claims were registered.
Specifically, the applicants claim to have crossed from the areas not under the effective control of the Republic of Cyprus to the areas under the effective control of the Republic through the buffer zone at different intervals (between July and August 2024). The applicants allege that while in the areas under the effective control of the Republic of Cyprus they orally informed the authorities of their wish to apply for asylum, which in turn returned them to the buffer zone and left them stranded there (from two to four months). Some applicants claim to have been pushed back to the buffer zone several times. The Cypriot authorities eventually transferred them to reception and accommodation centres where their asylum requests were registered. One applicant’s asylum application has already been examined and dismissed; he applied for a review to the Administrative Court of International Protection and the proceedings are pending. The remaining applicants were interviewed for relocation to another EU country.
The applicants complain of the conditions they were forced to live in during the time they had been stranded in the buffer zone (which was allegedly snake infected) without adequate shelter, food or medical attention particularly affecting the vulnerable persons among them. They further complain that they were pushed back to the buffer zone in Cyprus without their asylum claims having been registered and reviewed by the Cypriot authorities with their only options being to continue living in conditions which violated Article 3 of the Convention or return to a country – whether their country of origin or a neighbouring country – whose safety had not been previously assessed by the Republic of Cyprus. They complain additionally about the treatment they suffered at the hands of the Cypriot authorities when returning them to the buffer zone as the pushbacks were forcible and violent, they were searched without being informed of reasons, some were photographed, their mobile phones were confiscated, while some applicants were detained in a dark room without food and water and were threatened with violence in the event of their return. They rely on Article 3, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention.
Some applicants also complain that they were arbitrarily detained without receiving any formal communication as to the grounds of their detention or its length, and that they did not have available remedies to contest it. They rely in this regard on Article 5 §§ 1, 2 and 4 of the Convention.
Lastly, a family of applicants complain under Article 8 of allegedly being separated for a period of approximately two months with two of them (one being underage and the other one seventy-seven years of age) being transferred to a reception centre while the rest were left stranded in the buffer zone.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Common questions
1. All applicants listed in the Appendix tables to the present report are requested to verify the correctness of the spelling of their names and surnames and other personal information. All applicants are requested to refer to the numbering in the Appendix tables.
2. Did the facts of which the applicants complain in the present case occur within the jurisdiction of the Republic of Cyprus within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention?
3. In light of the procedural protection from torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, has there been a violation of Article 3 on account of the applicants’ allegation that the domestic authorities refused them access to the asylum procedure for months and left them in fear of being sent back to their countries of origin (see, D.A. and Others v. Poland, no. 51246/17, 8 July 2021, A.E.A. v. Greece, no. 39034/12, 15 March 2018)?
4. Did the applicants’ living conditions in the buffer zone prior to the registration of their application for asylum constitute inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention?
Reference is made to the applicants’ allegations that they had insufficient access to basic amenities such as food, water, adequate medical care, and appropriate shelter in extreme heat and in a snake infested area.
5. Did the circumstances and manner of the treatment of the applicants by the Cypriot authorities amount to degrading or inhuman treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
Reference is made to the applicants’ claim that they were searched without being informed of reasons, some were photographed, their mobile phones were confiscated, most were violently “pushed-back” to the buffer zone and that some of them were detained in a dark room without food and water and were threatened with violence.
Questions specific to applicants nos. 1, 2 and 4 in application no. 32295/24 and applicants nos. 1, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 in application no. 5455/25
6. Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:
(a) Did the deprivation of liberty fall within one of the exceptions under this provision?
(b) Was their deprivation of liberty “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”?
(c) As regards the applicant children, was their deprivation of liberty compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in view of their vulnerability?
Reference is made to the applicants complain that they were arbitrarily detained, whether in a police car or in a warehouse, without receiving any formal communication as to the grounds of their detention or its length, nor did they have available remedies to contest it.
7. Were the applicants informed, in a language which they understood, of the reasons for their detention, as required by Article 5 § 2 of the Convention (see, Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, §§ 115-116, 15 December 2016)?
8. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective and accessible procedure by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their deprivation of liberty, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?
Question specific to applicants nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 in application no. 5455/25
9. Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?
Reference is made to the applicants’ allegation that they were separated for a period of approximately two months due to the authorities’ decision to transfer applicant no. 8 (who was seventy-seven years old at the time) along with applicant no. 4 (who was a minor at the time) to a reception centre with the latter made to act as care-giver to the former, while the remaining family members had been left in the buffer zone.
APPENDIX
List of applicants case no. 32295/24
No.
Applicant’s Name
Year of birth
Nationality
1.
Z.A.
1995
Somali
2.
A.H.
2002
Sudanese
3.
L.I.
2001
Nigerian
4.
H.S.
1992
Somali
List of applicants case no. 5455/25
No.
Applicant’s Name
Year of birth
Nationality
1.
E.A.
1993
Cameroonian
2.
S.A.
1987
Somali
3.
F.A.
2006
Somali
4.
Y.A.
2007
Somali
5.
H.A.
2010
Somali
6.
M.A.
2013
Somali
7.
Y.M.
2021
Somali
8.
B.D.
1947
Somali
9.
A.J.
2021
Iraqi
10.
A.K.
1996
Iraqi
11.
Z.M.
2023
Somali
12.
A.N.
1996
Iraqi
13.
J.N.
1994
Nigerian
14.
A.O.
2023
Stateless
15.
B.O.
2022
Stateless
16.
D.O.
1992
Nigerian
17.
A.S.
2000
Afghan