CEDHCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 septembre 2018
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:001-187148
- Date
- 29 septembre 2018
- Publication
- 29 septembre 2018
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleCommunicated
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .sBE9014D9 { width:12.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sD35D798C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sB7E30255 { width:26.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE56A8EFE { width:18.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC7B12555 { width:23.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4DE81897 { width:12.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s74DC3D21 { margin-left:33.01pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s7D2DD31E { width:26.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF615212F { width:18.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3A18C2CF { width:23.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }     Communicated on 29 September 2018       FOURTH SECTION Application no. 36896/18 W.O. and Others against Hungary lodged on 6 August 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the confinement, in conditions which are allegedly inhuman of an Afghan family (two adults and two minor children of 3 and 1 years of age) to the Röszke transit zone at the border of Hungary and Serbia since 23   April 2017, pending the examination of their asylum requests. The first and the second applicant, the mother and the oldest child, claim that they were in a particularly vulnerable situation since they had been victims of domestic violence inflicted by, inter alia , the fourth applicant (the father) prior to their confinement in Hungary. 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?   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 conditions within the transit zone constitute an interference with the applicants’ physical and moral integrity in breach of Article 8 of the Convention?   5.     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?   APPENDIX     N o . Name   Birth year Nationality Representative   W. O.   1992 Afghan G. Matevzic   I.O.   2015 Afghan G. Matevzic   I.O.   2017 Afghan G. Matevzic   O.G.O.   1988 Afghan G. Matevzic    Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
- Date
- 29 septembre 2018
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:001-187148
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral
- Résumé officiel