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 } .s5921DF5B { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s7E985A60 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:6pt } .s13F94BE0 { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.3pt } .sC8FE61A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.3pt } .s13F94BE1 { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.2pt }   Communicated on 30 August 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 38297/17 I.A. against Hungary lodged on 31 May 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the ongoing confinement, in conditions which are allegedly inhuman, of an unaccompanied minor Afghan national to the Röszke transit zone at the border of Hungary and Serbia from 18   May 2017, pending the examination of his 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, having regard in particular to his vulnerable status?   2.     Was the applicant deprived of his 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 his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of the detention, as required by Article   5 §   4 of the Convention?   4.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his 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?