CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 3 février 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2C3C2C2 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s71604A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .s2D1013D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .sEBD403CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:6pt } .sD37EA1D5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:8pt } .s96B1B5AB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center } .s2E1B62A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:13pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD0A217A5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3BF0B6C7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6B38CF35 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s7C9EDFAD { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sAB798EC2 { width:3.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s71220C2D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDBF374D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3F0D5878 { width:5.66pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9A6E8000 { width:6.34pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD4F9A385 { width:4.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .sD62BB3FA { width:7.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3A013CA3 { font-family:Arial; color:#424242 } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9386A8B3 { width:0.44pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB435C42F { width:1.36pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sF0C78780 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .sF7177B22 { width:0.32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5165BC52 { margin-left:17pt } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sAE1ABF8F { width:36.89pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sEE48D15E { width:149.43pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s1E019DFF { width:46.56pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA49AD2E4 { width:177.11pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .sA0DD7113 { width:8.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sCEEE5F3A { width:31.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC6F05236 { width:15.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7D2FB687 { width:23.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s257572D9 { width:20.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s71106866 { width:8.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4FB6860E { width:31.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s43437E47 { width:15.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6C81191C { width:23.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s76515AA6 { width:20.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3A3C6A58 { height:2.1pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside } THIRD SECTION CASE OF O.H. AND OTHERS v. SERBIA (Application no. 57185/17)   JUDGMENT Art 4 P4 • Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens • Arbitrary removal by police of irregular migrants from Serbia to Bulgarian side of the border despite domestic court’s acknowledgment of their asylum claims, ordering the issuance of temporary residence permits and the facilitation of their accommodation • Removal unrelated to initial unauthorised entry into Serbian territory • Expulsion without a prior examination of removal on an individual basis Art 3 (substantive) • Degrading treatment • Duration and impact of the applicants’ exposure to inadequate conditions at the border police station for ten hours did not reach the severity threshold Art 3 (substantive) • Removal of the applicants from Serbia during the night in freezing temperatures amounted to inhuman treatment Art 3 (procedural) • Expulsion • Respondent State’s failure to examine whether the applicants would have access to an adequate asylum procedure in Bulgaria Art 5 § 1   • Unlawful and arbitrary detention from the discontinuation of the misdemeanour proceedings against the applicants until their expulsion from Serbia • Detention without a basis in domestic law • Applicants deprived of their liberty in a deceptive way Art 5 § 2 • Information in language understood • Authorities engaged the services of an interpreter at the police station following the applicants’ arrest Art 5 § 4 • Police’s failure to provide applicants with legal assistance deprived them of the possibility of challenging the lawfulness of their detention   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 3 February 2026   FINAL   03/05/2026   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of O.H. and Others v. Serbia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Ioannis Ktistakis , President ,   Peeter Roosma,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Darian Pavli,   Mateja Đurović,   Canòlic Mingorance Cairat,   Vasilka Sancin, judges , and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   57185/17) against the Republic of Serbia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by 17 Afghan nationals on 1 August 2017 (“the applicants” – see appended list); the decision to give notice of the application to the Serbian Government (“the Government”); the decision not to have the applicants’ names disclosed; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 16 December 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the removal of migrants from Afghanistan to the Republic of Bulgaria after they had expressed their intention to seek asylum in Serbia, and a lack of effective domestic remedies against their removal. It also concerns the lawfulness and conditions of their detention prior to their removal. THE FACTS 2.     A list of the applicants, together with their personal details, is set out in the appended table. The President granted leave to Mr N. Kovačević to represent the applicants before the Court (Rule 36 §§ 2 and 4 (a)) of the Rules of Court). 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms Z. Jadrijević Mladar. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. I.         EVENTS OF 3 AND 4 FEBRUARY 2017 5 .     In the early hours of 3 February 2017, at approximately 12.15 a.m., Serbian authorities arrested the applicants near Dimitrovgrad train station in Serbia. The applicants had been part of a larger group of 25 migrants detected by a border police unit monitoring the border with Bulgaria. They were arrested on suspicion of committing a misdemeanour of illegal border crossing (see paragraph 49 below). 6.     Following their arrest, the police contacted police officers in Bulgaria with a view to returning the group pursuant to the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Serbia on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation (see paragraph 58 below). However, as evident from the facts presented below, the applicants were not returned pursuant to this Agreement. 7 .     According to police reports, the crime scene investigation unit arrived at the place of arrest at 1.45 a.m. At 2.15 a.m. the applicants and other members of the group were brought to the premises of Gradina Border Police Station ( Stanica granične policije Gradina – hereinafter “Gradina Police Station”), which shared its offices with the Regional Border Police Centre for the Republic of Bulgaria ( Regionalni centar granične policije prema Republici Bugarskoj – hereinafter “the Regional Border Police Centre”) by members of the border police, the army and the Gendarmerie police unit (see   paragraphs 51 below). 8 .     The police issued detention orders against the first, second, third, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, fourteenth and fifteenth applicants. The detention orders, signed by those applicants, indicate that they were served at 2.15 a.m. The applicants were detained pursuant to Article 190 of the Misdemeanours Act and Article 86 of the Police Act (see paragraphs 46 and 48 below) because they had been caught illegally crossing the border and the authorities had reasonable grounds to believe they might flee or continue committing offences, and because they could not be immediately brought before a court. The applicants were held in Gradina Police Station, with the start of detention recorded as 12.15 a.m. on 3   February 2017. 9 .     Along with the detention orders, the above-mentioned 10 applicants were provided with forms outlining their rights as detainees, which they also signed. Both the orders and the forms were in the Serbian Cyrillic alphabet. Both documents indicated that an employee of the Danish Refugee Council translated the contents into English, thereby informing the applicants of their substance. The detention orders further stated that the applicants had declined to notify anyone of their detention and had chosen not to retain legal counsel. Additionally, the orders informed the applicants of their right to appeal with a time-limit of four hours for submitting the appeal and that the judge would be required to decide on the appeal within a four-hour period. 10 .     According to the information provided by the applicants, the police asked a Farsi interpreter from the Belgrade Centre for Human Rights ( Beogradski centar za ljudska prava – hereinafter “the BCHR”) to go to Gradina Police Station to facilitate communication with them, but he was initially unavailable. However, he did arrive later. The Government stated that a Farsi interpreter from the BCHR had been present at Gradina Police Station in the early hours of 3   February 2017. In a report of 6 February 2017 prepared by the BCHR concerning the events of the present case, it is stated that the police asked Mr P.J., a Farsi interpreter working with the BCHR, to go to Gradina Police Station at 2.00   a.m. on 3 February 2017. 11 .     The police searched the applicants and their belongings between 2.15   a.m. and 4.30 a.m. Later, between 9 a.m. and 12.30 p.m., the applicants were fingerprinted and photographed under Article 77 of the Police Act to establish their identities, as none of them possessed identity documents (see   paragraph 47 below). 12 .     The applicants were held in a basement room at Gradina Police Station. The conditions of those premises are described in paragraphs 51, 55 and 91 below. According to data provided by the applicants from the AccuWeather website, accessed on 22 July 2017, the outside temperature in Dimitrovgrad during their detention ranged from -2 o C to 6 o C. The applicants were given food provided by the Dimitrovgrad Reception Centre ( Prihvatni centar u Dimitrovgradu ), in cooperation with the Danish Refugee Council and the BCHR, and clothing and shoes were provided by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. 13 .     Subsequently, according to the applicants, they were transported in a single van to the Pirot Misdemeanour Court ( Prekršajni sud u Pirotu ) (hereinafter “the Misdemeanour Court’) and brought before the misdemeanour judge at around 2 p.m. Gradina Police Station and the Misdemeanour Court are situated approximately 25 km apart. The detention orders stated that the police detention ended at 2.30 p.m. The border police lodged requests to open misdemeanour proceedings against the above ‑ mentioned 10 applicants on suspicion of illegally crossing the border. Identical requests were also filed against eight other individuals who had been apprehended at the same time as the applicants. No proceedings were sought against the remaining seven applicants, who the police had identified as minors. During the proceedings, the Misdemeanour Court expressed doubts as to the actual ages of the first, second and tenth applicants and treated them as minors during the proceedings. 14 .     Based on the photographs submitted by the applicants, it appears that they were held in the courthouse hallway during the misdemeanour proceedings. The images show the applicants sitting and lying on the floor, although some unoccupied benches are also visible. The applicants were kept under the continuous supervision of armed border police officers. 15 .     At 10.30 p.m. the Misdemeanour Court discontinued the proceedings because the applicants had expressed their intention to seek asylum in Serbia. It held that the continuation of the proceedings would run contrary to the principle of non-punishment for illegal entry of asylum-seekers provided by Article 8 of the Asylum Act (see paragraph 50 below). The Misdemeanour Court further noted that the applicants were refugees from a country affected by war and that there were indications they might have been the victims of human trafficking, which, in the court’s view, exempted them from liability for the illegal border crossing. The court also took into account the age of the minor applicants as a mitigating factor. 16 .     During the proceedings the applicants stated that they feared returning to Afghanistan because of the ongoing war and threat of terrorism. They also submitted that they did not consider Bulgaria a safe country, alleging that they had been subjected to extortion by the police there. The applicants admitted to having been smuggled across the border and declared their intention to apply for asylum in Serbia. 17 .     In the operative part of the decisions to discontinue the proceedings, the court ordered the police officers from Gradina Police Station to do the following: “... allow the authorised representative of the competent Commissariat for Refugees [and Migration] of the Republic of Serbia to take over the proceedings concerning the individuals who have expressed the intention to seek asylum in Serbia, as these people are refugees from a war zone in Afghanistan and to ensure, through the Commissariat for Refugees [and Migration] in Dimitrovgrad, that the migrants are accommodated. The procedure must comply with the provisions of the Asylum Act, which prohibits the expulsion or return of a person against their will if they have expressed the intention to seek asylum as a refugee from a war zone. There is also a suspicion that these people are victims of human trafficking, which is why they cannot be prosecuted.” 18.     The proceedings were conducted with the help of two interpreters. Firstly, the applicants’ statements were translated from Pashto or Farsi into English, and then from English into Serbian. 19 .     After the conclusion of the misdemeanour proceedings, the applicants were once again handed over to the police who issued certificates to each of them, indicating their intention to seek asylum in the Republic of Serbia ( potvrde o izraženoj nameri da traže azil u Republici Srbiji ) (hereinafter “the asylum-intention certificates”). According to the applicants, those certificates were served around 1.00 a.m. on 4   February, while a police report states the time of service was between 12.30 and 12.45   a.m. on the same date. The certificates instructed the applicants to report to the Divljana Reception Centre and they served as temporary permits to stay in Serbia. They also noted that the minor applicants were accompanied. 20 .     Instead of following the decision of the Misdemeanour Court (see   paragraph 17 above), the police transported the applicants in a single van to the Bulgarian border. The police confiscated all the documents previously issued to the applicants in Serbia and then forced them to cross into Bulgaria. The incident occurred during the night, in freezing conditions with temperatures dropping to -2 o C. The applicants further alleged that some of them had been kicked by police officers after voicing complaints about their treatment. 21 .     The exact time of the applicants’ expulsion is unclear. The applicants contended that it had happened between 2.30 and 3 a.m. on 4   February 2017. A report by the BCHR stated that the van transporting the applicants had left for the border at 1.30 a.m. (as witnessed by an interpreter working for the BCHR who had spoken to the applicants before they were taken to the border). The applicants stated that the journey from the Misdemeanour Court had lasted 1 hour and 30 minutes. The Constitutional Court did not determine the exact time of the removal (see paragraphs 27-29 below). As for the police reports, they stated that the police officers had not exercised any police powers against the applicants after they had been served with the asylum ‑ intention certificates, essentially denying that they had removed the applicants from Serbian territory. 22 .     According to the applicants, they spent the night in the forest. The following morning, at 8.25 a.m., they were arrested by the Bulgarian police in the village of Kalotina, near the Serbian border. The authorities then directed them to either the Voenna Rampa Reception Centre or the Harmanli Reception Centre. The seventh applicant, however, was transferred to the Bosmanci Detention Centre. On that occasion, the Bulgarian police produced a report which stated that all the applicants, except the seventh applicant, had previously been registered in the national system for the identification of individuals based on fingerprints and palm prints. II.       LATER DEVELOPMENTS 23.     Following their arrest by the Bulgarian authorities (see paragraph 22 above) the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth applicants were placed in the Voenna Rampa Reception Centre. On 30 July 2017, the twelfth to seventeenth applicants re ‑ entered Serbia, where they were re-registered as asylum-seekers and, at the time of their application to the Court, were residing in the Krnjača Asylum Centre in Belgrade. The third to sixth applicants remained in the Voenna Rampa Reception Centre in Bulgaria. 24.     The first, second, eight, ninth, tenth and eleventh applicants stayed in Sofia, living either on the streets or in hotels paid for by third parties. On 11   February 2017 they re-entered Serbia. After a further attempt to remove them to Bulgaria, they succeeded in re-registering as asylum-seekers and remained in Serbia. The second applicant currently resides in Germany and, according to his legal representative, benefits from refugee protection. 25 .     The seventh applicant was held in Bosmanci Detention Centre. She re-entered Serbia on 28 July 2017 and was re-registered as an asylum ‑ seeker. She now resides in France. Her representative stated that she had been resettled in France from Serbia by the UNHCR office. III.     CONSTITUTIONAL COURT PROCEEDINGS 26 .     The applicants, represented by lawyers working for the BCHR, lodged a constitutional appeal on 3 March 2017 and contended that several of their rights guaranteed by the Serbian Constitution (hereinafter “the Constitution”) and the Convention had been violated. On 29   December 2020 the Constitutional Court partially upheld their constitutional appeal and ruled as follows. A.    Findings of violations 1.      Complaint concerning the removal of the applicants from Serbian territory in the early hours of 4 February 2017 27 .     The applicants complained that the conduct of the police officers following the discontinuation of misdemeanour proceedings against them had amounted to a collective expulsion in violation of Article 4 of Protocol No.   4 to the Convention and Article 39 § 3 of the Constitution. 28 .     The Constitutional Court held that following the discontinuation of the misdemeanour proceedings, the police officers had transported the applicants in a van to the Bulgarian border, contrary to the decisions of the Misdemeanour Court (see paragraph 17 above). There, they had taken all the documents previously issued to the applicants (including the asylum ‑ intention certificates) and forced them to return to Bulgaria during a very cold night, with temperatures of -2 o C. 29 .     In the Constitutional Court’s view, that conduct had amounted to a violation of Article 39 § 3, in conjunction with Article 25 of the Constitution. The relevant parts of the decision read as follows: “... in all cases of removal of an asylum-seeker from a Contracting State to a third intermediary country without examination of the asylum requests on the merits, regardless of whether the receiving third country is an EU Member State or not or whether it is a State Party to the [European Convention on Human Rights] or not, it is the duty of the removing State to examine thoroughly the question whether or not there is a real risk of the asylum-seeker being denied access, in the receiving third country, to an adequate asylum procedure, protecting him or her against refoulement . If it is established that the existing guarantees in this regard are insufficient, Article 3 implies a duty that the asylum-seeker should not be removed to the third country concerned. ... ... the Constitutional Court observes that, despite the fact that the applicants were legally characterised as refugees from a war zone, were subjected to the legal procedure applicable to refugees, thereby receiving the protection of the Serbian legal order, and had expressed their intention to seek asylum, they were in fact expelled by the actions of police officers. Such conduct contains elements of inhuman treatment. These elements are further reinforced by the fact that the applicants were expelled to the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria, into a forest, at night, in temperatures of ‑2 o C, particularly bearing in mind that the group included eight minors, four of whom were under the age of five and three others under the age of seven, and that this was accompanied by the confiscation of documents previously issued to them (asylum-intention certificates). By acting in this manner, State agents breached the guarantee of the principle of non-refoulement , coupled with elements of inhuman treatment, which requires that any removal of migrants be carried out in accordance with the law, and that foreigners may only be expelled on the basis of a decision of the competent authority adopted and enforced through the procedure prescribed by law. In the present case, the violation of the principle of non-refoulement , with elements of inhuman treatment, lies not only in the absence of an individualised act by which the competent authority ordered a specific person to leave the territory of Serbia, but also in the fact that the expulsion was carried out despite the decision of the Misdemeanour Court and after the asylum procedure had been initiated by the submission of a formal expression ‑ of-intent form, at a time when that procedure had not yet been concluded. The Constitutional Court further notes that an examination of the second aspect of the principle of non-refoulement – namely, whether the individuals concerned are being returned to a safe third country – does not arise in the present case, as such an assessment is relevant only where a formal expulsion decision has been adopted. In this case, the focus lies on the actions of the police, which were contrary to a judicial decision and effectively deprived the applicants of any possibility of participating in the full procedure for determining their asylum status.” 2.      Complaints concerning safeguards against arbitrary detention 30 .     The applicants complained that they had not been able to appoint a lawyer in order to challenge their detention, the charges against them and the conditions of detention. Furthermore, they complained that they had not had an opportunity, with the help of an expert on immigration and human rights’ law, to present their claims of fear of ill-treatment in Afghanistan and Bulgaria. Lastly, they complained that they had not been informed, in a language they understood, of their rights during arrest and detention. The applicants argued that Mr P.J., a Farsi interpreter, had been at Gradina Police Station but for the purpose of assisting the police officers in establishing the applicants’ identities and not to interpret for the applicants the reasons for their detention. 31 .     The Constitutional Court analysed those complaints from the standpoint of guarantees provided in Article 27 § 3 and Article 29 § 1 of the Constitution. It found that contrary to Article 29 § 1, the police had not appointed a lawyer for the applicants, even though they had been detained without a court order. The Constitutional Court further held that it had been reasonable to assume that the applicants, owing to their circumstances, had been in need of a lawyer in order to effectively understand their rights and the proceedings against them. As the police had failed to give them a legal ‑ aid lawyer, the Constitutional Court concluded that the applicants had been deprived of their right to challenge the lawfulness of their police ‑ ordered detention. 3.      Redress awarded 32 .     In addition to asking for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage that they had suffered, the applicants asked the Constitutional Court to order the Serbian Government, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Defence to ensure no further violations of human rights of migrants and asylum-seekers and to make sure, in particular, that the principles of non-refoulement and the prohibition of collective expulsion were respected. The Constitutional Court awarded 1,000 euros (EUR) to each of the applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage suffered owing to all the violations found and ruled that it had no jurisdiction to order measures such as the ones the applicants had requested. 33 .     The respondent State paid the above-mentioned compensation to the second and seventh applicants. The remaining applicants did not submit banking information needed to make the payments. B.    No violations found by the Constitutional Court 1.      Complaints concerning the alleged unlawfulness and arbitrariness of the applicants’ detention 34 .     The applicants complained that the deprivation of liberty between their arrest and the discontinuation of the misdemeanour proceedings against them had been arbitrary because they had ultimately been recognised as asylum-seekers and the misdemeanour proceedings against them had been discontinued. As for the deprivation of liberty following the discontinuation of those proceedings until their removal from Serbian territory, the applicants argued that it had had no basis in domestic law. 35 .     The Constitutional Court found no violation of Article 27 § 1 of the Constitution and ruled that the deprivation of the applicants’ liberty, which had lasted from their arrest (see paragraph 5 above) until the misdemeanour proceedings against them had been discontinued (see paragraph 15 above), had had basis in domestic law (detention of individuals caught in the act of committing a misdemeanour because their identity cannot be established, pursuant to Article 190 §§ 1 (a) and 3 of the Misdemeanours Act – see paragraph 46 below). The Constitutional Court further held that the applicants had been detained in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law because the authorities had served them with detention orders pursuant to the Misdemeanours Act. The Constitutional Court added that the decision of the Misdemeanour Court to discontinue the proceedings against the applicants because they had expressed their intention to seek asylum in Serbia could not bring into question the initial lawfulness of detention. 2.      Complaints concerning the alleged ill-treatment of the applicants 36.     The applicants complained that the conditions of detention in Gradina Police Station and in the building of the Misdemeanour Court had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. 37 .     As for their detention in Gradina Police Station, the Constitutional Court accepted that the applicants had been held in overcrowded conditions. The Constitutional Court, in establishing the relevant facts, referred to the findings of the Serbian Ombudsperson (see paragraph 54 below). The Constitutional Court ultimately concluded that that period of the applicants’ detention had not amounted to any form of ill-treatment prohibited by Article   25 of the Constitution. That conclusion was reached in the light of several mitigating circumstances, namely the fact that the applicants had been provided with food and clothing during their short period of detention, and that they had been detained during a migrant crisis, during which an unexpectedly high number of foreigners had entered Serbian territory. The Constitutional Court relied on this Court’s case-law in Muršić   v. Croatia ([GC], no. 7334/13, 20   October 2016). As for the conditions of the applicants’ stay in the courthouse in Pirot, the Constitutional Court dismissed that part of the constitutional appeal as manifestly ill-founded. C.    Other complaints 38.     The Constitutional Court did not address the applicants’ complaints that they had not had access to an effective legal remedy with suspensive effect to challenge their removal from Serbian territory and that they had been transported in overcrowded conditions from the Misdemeanour Court to the border. The Constitutional Court also did not address the applicants’ complaint regarding the unlawfulness of their detention following the discontinuation of the misdemeanour proceedings (see paragraphs 34 and 35 above). Notwithstanding its finding that the applicants had needed a lawyer to effectively understand their rights and the proceedings against them, the Constitutional Court did not explicitly rule on the applicants’ complaint that they had not been informed, in a language they understood, of their rights during arrest and detention (see paragraphs 30 and 31 above). IV.    THE SECOND APPLICANT’S AGE 39 .     The second applicant, like all the other applicants, had no identification documents from his country of origin – Afghanistan. In his application, he stated that he had been born on 13 March 2000, which would have made him 16 years old at the time of his arrest and expulsion. However, official documents provide conflicting information: the detention order and the police identification report by the Serbian police list his date of birth as   1   January 1998 (see paragraphs 8 and 11 above), and the same date appears in the request to initiate misdemeanour proceedings (see paragraph 13 above). During those proceedings, the Misdemeanour Court recorded his date of birth as February 2000, indicating a suspicion that he might be a minor (ibid.). In the Bulgarian police report, it was stated that the second applicant had been born on 10 March 1996 (see paragraph 22 above). 40 .     In a submission dated 9 June 2025, the applicants’ representative provided the Court with the second applicant’s residence permit in Germany, which indicates that he was born on 24 January 1992. The respondent Government did not make any comments in that regard. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE I.         DOMESTIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE A.    The Constitution of the Republic of Serbia ( Ustav Republike Srbije , published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia – OG RS – no. 98/06) 41.     Article 25 provides that physical and psychological integrity are inviolable and that no one will be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, nor to medical or scientific experimentation without their freely given consent. 42.     Article 27 §§ 1-3 reads as follows: “Everyone has the right to personal liberty and security. Deprivation of liberty is permitted only for reasons and through procedures prescribed by law. A person deprived of liberty by a State authority must be immediately informed, in a language he or she understands, of the reasons for the deprivation, the charges against him or her and his or her rights. That person also has the right to promptly notify a person of his or her choice of his or her detention. Anyone deprived of liberty has the right to appeal to a court, which is obliged to promptly decide on the lawfulness of the detention and order release if the deprivation of liberty was unlawful.” 43.     Article 28 §§ 1 and 2 provides that a person deprived of liberty must be treated humanely and with respect for the dignity of his or her personality and prohibits all forms of violence against a person deprived of liberty. 44.     Article 29 § 1 provides that a person deprived of liberty without a court decision must be immediately informed that he or she has the right to remain silent and the right not to be questioned without the presence of a defence lawyer of his or her own choosing, or a lawyer who will provide free legal assistance if he or she is unable to pay for it. 45 .     Article 39 § 3 reads as follows: “The entry and stay of foreigners in the Republic of Serbia is regulated by law. A foreigner may be expelled only on the basis of a decision by the competent authority, in a procedure prescribed by law, and only if he or she is guaranteed the right to appeal. Expulsion is permitted only where the individual does not face persecution because of their race, gender, religion, nationality, citizenship, membership in a particular social group or political opinion, or where he or she does not face a serious violation of the rights guaranteed by this Constitution.” B.    The Misdemeanours Act ( Zakon o prekršajima , published in OG RS nos. 65/13 and 13/16) 46 .     Article 190 § 1 provides that authorised police officers may bring to court a person found committing a misdemeanour without a court order if: (a)   the identity of the person cannot be determined or if identity verification is required; (b) the person does not have a permanent or temporary residence permit; (c) there is a risk that the person may leave the country to avoid liability for the misdemeanour, and the offence is such that a misdemeanour warrant cannot be issued; or (d) it is necessary to prevent the continuation of the offence, or if there is an imminent risk that the person will repeat the offence or evade misdemeanour proceedings. Article 190 §   3 provides that, in cases referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, and if immediate transfer to the court is not possible, the police may detain the suspect for up to 24 hours if there are grounds to suspect that the person may flee or continue committing the offences. In the situation referred to in paragraph   3 of this Article, the competent police officer must, without delay, inform a person chosen by the detained individual of his or her detention, as well as the diplomatic or consular representative of the State of which the detainee is a national, or, where the detainee is a refugee or stateless person, the representative of the appropriate international organisation (Article 190 §   4). Paragraphs   5 and 6 of the same Article provide that a detention order is to be issued in respect of the arrested suspect and that the accused and his or her defence counsel have the right to lodge an appeal against the detention order within four hours of its service. C.    The Police Act ( Zakon o policiji , published in OG RS no. 6/16) 47 .     Article 77 provides, inter alia , that identity verification is carried out when a person does not possess the required identification document or when there is doubt about the authenticity of such a document, and the identity cannot be verified by other means, or upon a specific request from a competent authority. It further provides that identity is established using data from forensic records, through the application of criminalistics and forensic tools, or by means of medical or other appropriate expert examinations. 48 .     Article 86 § 1 provides that a police officer is to detain a person where such detention is prescribed by another law. D.    The Protection of the State Border Act ( Zakon o zaštiti državne granice , published in OG RS no. 97/08) 49 .     Article 65 § 1 provides, inter alia , that a natural person will be punished for a misdemeanour with a fine ranging from 5,000 to 50,000   Serbian dinars or with imprisonment of up to 30 days if he or she crosses or attempts to cross the State border outside a designated border crossing point. E.     The Asylum Act ( Zakon o azilu , published in OG RS no.   109/07) 50 .     Article 8 provides that an individual who seeks asylum will not be punished for illegal entry into or stay within the territory of the Republic of Serbia, provided that he or she submits an application for asylum   without delay   and presents a   valid justification   for his or her unlawful entry or presence. F.     The Serbian Ombudsperson – the National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture (NPM) – Reports on the visits to the Regional Border Police Centre for Bulgaria 51 .     The Regional Border Police Centre and Gradina Police Station are two distinct organisational units within the Serbian Police. However, they share some of the infrastructure, which is the case for the room in which the applicants were held on 3 February 2017 (see paragraph 12 above). 1.      Visit on 27 July 2016 52 .     The visit was announced. In the relevant parts the report reads as follows: “In the period from 1 January to 1 July 2016, a total of 2,673 individuals were registered as having been discovered while illegally crossing the State border. Of that number, the majority were citizens of Afghanistan ... According to official reports, migrants most often cross the border on foot or are smuggled in vehicles. ... According to official reports, the registration procedure at the Regional Border Police Centre premises lasts no longer than six hours.” 53 .     It states that in the same period the Regional Border Police Centre issued 3,296 asylum-intention certificates, following which it directed the asylum-seekers towards an asylum centre with available accommodation. 2.      Visit on 9 February 2017 54 .     This visit was unannounced. In the relevant parts, the report reads as follows: “According to the records of the Regional Border Police Centre, in January 2017 303 individuals were found who were attempting to enter or who had illegally entered the Republic of Serbia. ... Asylum-intention certificates are issued by border police stations, which receive information from the duty centre of the Border Police Directorate about available places in migrant reception centres. Regional Border Police Centre officers do not escort these individuals to the centres; instead, transportation is organised by the   International Organization for Migration (IOM), in coordination with the   Commissariat for Refugees and Migration. ... According to Regional Border Police Centre officers, communication with encountered foreigners is still conducted orally, in English, with someone from the group who speaks the language. Occasionally, they use interpreter services provided by the Belgrade Centre for Human Rights and the IOM. The recommendation of the NPM to provide a rights information form translated into Arabic, Farsi, Urdu and Pashto – which police officers could hand out to migrants/asylum-seekers to inform them of their legal situation and rights – has not been implemented.” 55 .     In a part concerning the detention of migrants, the report reads as follows: “[The Regional Border Police Officers stated that they do] not have detention facilities and do not hold migrants in detention. In cases where misdemeanour or other proceedings are initiated during the night, migrants reportedly stay in the dining area for several hours until they are brought before a misdemeanour judge or until identity verification and other procedures are completed. In the courtyard, there is a ‘container’ intended for accommodating vulnerable groups of migrants (women and children), but it is not yet in use. However, during the inspection of the building, the NPM team found a separate room where migrants are placed. On the floor of the room, there were spread-out, dirty blankets that appeared to have been used, as well as remnants of food, Bulgarian currency and forgotten personal belongings. Based on those findings, the NPM team concluded that migrants do spend time in that room, even though it lacks a toilet access to drinking water and adequate heating. [Photos of the room are attached to the report.]” G.    Reports by the Belgrade Centre for Human Rights 56 .     The BCHR, a Belgrade-based NGO that provided assistance to asylum-seekers in Serbia, published annual reports entitled   “Right to asylum in the Republic of Serbia”   for the years 2015, 2016 and 2017, published in 2016, 2017 and 2018, respectively. Those reports indicate that 577,995 individuals were registered as asylum-seekers in 2015. That number dropped sharply to 12,821 in 2016, and the downward trend continued in 2017 with 6,199 registrations. The number of newly registered asylum-seekers in 2017 remained consistent throughout the year. II.       INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE A.    Report to the Government of Serbia on the visit to Serbia carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 26 May to 5 June 2015, 24 June 2016, CPT/Inf (2016) 21 57.     The CPT visited several police establishments where persons are deprived of liberty (Gradina Police Station was not among them) and found deficiencies in the conditions of detention similar to those documented by the NPM during its visit to Gradina Police Station (see paragraph   55 above). Most pertinently, it found that cells remained unsuitable for detention beyond a few hours, with poor lighting, inadequate ventilation and no mattresses, forcing detainees to sleep on hard “platforms”. Blankets were rarely cleaned, and sanitary facilities were generally in poor condition (see paragraph 32 of that report). The CPT recommended that Serbia improve material conditions in police cells (see paragraph 36 of that report). B.    Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Serbia on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation of 19 December 2007, OJ L 334, pp. 46-64 58 .     This agreement, approved by Council Decision