CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 janvier 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 17 January 2020 Published on 3 February 2020   FIRST SECTION Application no. 65275/19 W.S. against Greece lodged on 27 December 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is an unaccompanied minor from Afghanistan. The application concerns the applicant’s reception conditions, as well as the procedure concerning the examination of his asylum application. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Given the applicant’s status as an unaccompanied minor, as well as his state of health, has the applicant been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? 2.     Given that, according to the applicant’s allegations, he has not yet received reception conditions compatible with Article 3 of the Convention and the applicant’s particular status, as indicated by the Court in its interim measures, has there been a hindrance by the State with the effective exercise of the applicant’s right of application, ensured by Article 34 of the Convention (see   Mamatkulov   and   Askarov   v. Turkey   [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, §§ 128-129, ECHR 2005 ‑ I)?   3.     Given the applicant’s allegations concerning the treatment of his asylum request, has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?