CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 janvier 2020

.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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { 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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Communicated on 31 January 2020 Published on 17 February 2020   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 64050/16 W.A. against Hungary and 2 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the applicants’ removal to Serbia, following the rejection of their asylum requests as inadmissible on the grounds that Serbia was to be considered a “safe third country”. The applicants complain that their expulsion to Serbia took place as a result of a flawed asylum procedure and exposed them to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, because (a) there was a risk that they would not be allowed access to an asylum procedure in Serbia, (b) there was a risk of chain-refoulement, and (c) there was no prospect of access to adequate reception facilities. They also complain under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 that the domestic remedies concerning their expulsion were ineffective. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the Hungarian authorities’ decision to consider Serbia as a “safe third country” and to order the applicants’ expulsion towards that country expose them to a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary [GC], no. 47287/15, §§   163-164, 21 November 2019)?     APPENDIX   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Represented by 1 64050/16 W.A. v. Hungary 02/11/2016 Barbara POHÁRNOK 2 64558/16 M.C. v. Hungary 04/11/2016 Barbara POHÁRNOK 3 66064/16 M.H. v. Hungary 04/11/2016 Barbara POHÁRNOK