CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 juillet 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 10 July 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 34883/17 A.S. and Others against Hungary lodged on 17 May 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the confinement, in conditions which were allegedly inhuman, of an Afghan family (a mother – the applicant – who was eight months pregnant at the material time, her husband and their two minor children) to the Röszke transit zone at the border of Hungary and Serbia between 10   April and 19   May 2017, pending the examination of their asylum request. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment at the Röszke border transit zone, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention?   2.     Was the applicant deprived of her liberty in the transit zone in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Amuur v. France , 25 June 1996, § 38-49, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 ‑ III, and Riad and Idiab v. Belgium , nos. 29787/03 and 29810/03, § 68, 24 January 2008)?   3.     If so, did the applicant have at her disposal an effective procedure by which she could challenge the lawfulness of the detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?   4.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaint under Article 3 of the Convention with regard to allegedly inhuman or degrading treatment at the transit zone, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?