CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 novembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 12 November 2019   FIRST SECTION Application no. 44408/18 M.M. against Greece lodged on 20 September 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, who is a Syrian asylum seeker, complains about the conditions of his detention in Section B of Moria Hotspot from 29   August 2018 to 28   September   2018 and about his living conditions in Moria ever since. He also complains that his detention was not lawful, that he was not informed about the reasons for his detention nor was he able to challenge it effectively. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the applicant’s situation and health, has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of: (a)     the applicant’s conditions of detention in Section B of Moria Hotspot from 29 August 2018 to 28 September 2018; and (b)     the applicant’s living conditions in Moria Hotspot from 28   September 2018 onwards?   2.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention?   3.     Did the authorities discharge their obligation under Article 5   §   2 of the Convention to inform the applicant promptly, in a language he understood, of the reasons for his arrest that took place on 11   August 2018? If not, has there been a violation of that Convention provision?   4.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article   5 §   4 of the Convention (see Khlaifia and Others v.   Italy [GC], no.   16483/12, §§ 132-133, 15   December 2016?