CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 novembre 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 }   Communicated on 5 November 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 34298/18 A.J. against Greece lodged on 22 August 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a stateless Palestinian and unaccompanied minor who was granted asylum in Greece in 2016. The application concerns the applicant’s revocation of refugee status and the order to return to Palestine, as well as the reception conditions he faced in Greece, initially as a member of single-parent family and later as an unaccompanied minor. On 24 July 2018 the Court applied Rule 39 in the case and ordered that the applicant should not be removed until further notice. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     In the light of the applicant’s claims and the documents which have been submitted and having regard to the applicant’s situation as an unaccompanied minor who had been granted asylum, would he face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article   3 of the Convention if he were returned to Palestine?   2.     Having regard to the procedure followed by the domestic authorities who revoked the applicant’s refugee status and ordered his return to Palestine in order to be reunited with his mother, has there been a breach of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3?   3.     In view of the applicant’s allegations that he has not received proper psychological and psychosocial support and monitoring of his mental health despite multiple doctors’ recommendations since he arrived in Greece, has there been a breach of Article 3 and/or Article 8 of the Convention?   4.     Having regard to: a)     the domestic authorities’ alleged failure to initiate court proceedings under Article 1532 of the Civil Code and appoint a legal guardian for the applicant; and b)     the procedure followed by the domestic authorities as regards the applicant’s representation and the applicant’s reunification with his mother and taking into account the applicant’s allegations that he was never informed of his rights and there was no official follow-up of his situation which resulted in the deprivation of his refugee status, did the Greek authorities comply with their positive obligation under Article 8 of the Convention to protect the applicant’s physical and psychological well-being?   5.     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention in view of the fact that he has been separated from his siblings and they are hosted in various shelters for unaccompanied minors in different cities, taking also into account their vulnerable status?   6.     Has the principle of the best interests of the child been sufficiently taken into consideration in all the procedures relating to the applicant in the context of his above-mentioned complaints?   7.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?