CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 août 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7E985A60 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:6pt }   Communicated on 30 August 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 37327/17 A.A.A. and Others against Hungary lodged on 26 May 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the ongoing confinement, in conditions which are allegedly inhuman, of an Iraqi family (the parents and their four minor children) to the Tompa transit zone at the border of Hungary and Serbia from 29   March 2017, pending the examination of their asylum requests.   QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment at the Tompa border transit zone, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention, having regard in particular to the vulnerable status of the family?   2.     Were the applicants deprived of their 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 applicants have at their disposal an effective procedure by which they could challenge the lawfulness of the detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?   4.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their 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?