CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 septembre 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 } .s7E985A60 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:6pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sA56BACAB { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .s13783063 { width:6.24pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3537C2D6 { font-weight:normal }   Communicated on 13 September 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 37325/17 N.A. and Others against Hungary lodged on 26 May 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the confinement, in conditions which are allegedly inhuman, of a Syrian family (a married couple and their five minor children, one of whom was born in the transit zone) to the Tompa transit zone at the border of Hungary and Serbia between 3 and 30 May 2017, pending the examination of their asylum request. 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 factors of vulnerability in the family’s circumstances (see, mutatis mutandis , Popov v. France , nos. 39472/07 and   39474/07, § 91, 19 January 2012)?   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?               N.A. is a Syrian national who was born in 1975 and is represented by Ms G. Matevzic.     M.A.S. is a Syrian national who was born in 1982 and is represented by Ms G. Matevzic.     A.A. is a Syrian national who was born in 2009 and is represented by Ms G. Matevzic.     M.A. is a Syrian national who was born in 2015 and is represented by Ms G. Matevzic.     N.A. is a Syrian national who was born in 2017 and is represented by Ms G. Matevzic.     O.A. is a Syrian national who was born in 2012 and is represented by Ms G. Matevzic.     S.A. is a Syrian national who was born in 2008 and is represented by Ms G. Matevzic.