CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 janvier 2018

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6E59945 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .s13783063 { width:6.24pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block }   Communicated on 16 January 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 73860/17 M.B.K and Others against Hungary lodged on 17 October 2017 STATEMENT OF FACTS The application concerns the confinement, in conditions which are allegedly inhuman, of an Afghan family (including four minor children) to the Röszke transit zone at the border of Hungary and Serbia between 30   March and 24 October 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 Röszke 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?         M.B.K who was born in 1976     F.R. who was born in 1982     M.K. who was born in 2012     S.K. who was born in 2006     S.K. who was born in 2004     S.K. who was born in 2002