CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 octobre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 17 October 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 59435/17 Abdullah Mohamed ALHOWAIS against Hungary lodged on 4 August 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the circumstances of an incident at Tisza River, at the border between Serbia and Hungary, on 1 June 2016, when the applicant’s family (Syrians) and other persons attempted to cross the river into Hungary. The applicant asserts that the Hungarian law enforcement officers present on the shore set dogs on them, used tear gas and threw stones at them, hurting his brother. Eventually, they were driven back in the water, where his brother subsequently drowned. The applicant complains that this course of events and the ensuing, allegedly inadequate investigation amounted to a violation of the right of life of his deceased brother, both under the substantive and the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention. The applicant moreover asserts under Article 3 of the Convention that the conduct of the officers exposed the applicant himself to inhuman and degrading treatment, not adequately investigated. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have all effective domestic remedies been exhausted, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention?   In regard to the applicant’s deceased brother – Article 2   2.     Has the right to life of the applicant’s brother, ensured by Article   2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case?   3.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see paragraph   104 of Salman v.   Turkey [GC], no.   21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation into the death of the applicant’s brother in breach of Article   2 of the Convention?   In regard to the applicant himself – Article 3   4.     Did the circumstances in which the authorities averted the applicant’s own attempt to cross Tisza River – notably, the alleged use of stones, tear gas and dogs – amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention?   5.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph   131 of Labita v.   Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation into the incident concerning the applicant himself in breach of Article   3 of the Convention?