CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 mars 2022

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sC7FB4098 { width:113.82%; border-collapse:collapse } .sEDF7A3AF { width:6.84%; 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 } .s822D3598 { width:28.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s817AE20C { width:20.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7D1B163B { width:18.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1ACEBC9E { width:25.4%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9FAEB576 { width:6.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s54F55404 { width:28.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sADA854A5 { width:20.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s524D85B2 { width:18.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s856509E6 { width:25.4%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 11 April 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 56417/19 S.S. and Others against Hungary lodged on 22 October 2019 communicated on 25 March 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a removal of the applicants from Hungary after their apprehension at the airport in Budapest. The applicants are a mother with five children, two of whom were minors at the time of the events in question, and their relative, all Yemeni nationals (see the appended table for details). They arrived in Budapest, via Istanbul, on 21 April 2019, and were found by the Hungarian officials to be in possession of counterfeit travel documents. After submitting their requests for asylum, the applicants were subjected to the “apprehension and escort” measure under the Hungarian State Borders Act and removed from the Hungarian territory to the external side of the Hungarian border fence (on the border with Serbia). The removal took place in the early hours of 23 April 2019. A month later they managed to submit asylum requests in Serbia. The applicants complain they were part of a collective expulsion, in breach of Article 4 of Protocol No.   4 to the Convention. They furthermore complain under Article 3 of the Convention that they were expelled to Serbia without any assessment of the consequences of their removal for their Article 3 rights. They also complain under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 4 of Protocol   No.   4 that they had no effective remedy at their disposal.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the applicants, aliens in the respondent State, expelled collectively, in breach of Article   4 of Protocol No.   4 to the Convention (see Shahzad v.   Hungary , no. 12625/17, §§ 45-52 and 60-68, 8 July 2021)?   2.     Did the respondent State comply with its obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to assess the risks of treatment contrary to that provision before removing the applicants from Hungary (see Ilias and Ahmed v.   Hungary [GC], no. 47287/15, in particular §§ 129-134, 141, 148 and   163 ‑ 165, 21 November 2019)?   3.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Article   4 of Protocol No.   4, as required by Article   13 of the Convention (see Shahzad , cited above, §§ 77-79)?   APPENDIX   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. S.S. 1976 Yemeni Vienna, Austria 2. B.B. 1989 Yemeni Vienna, Austria 3. A.A.K. 1994 Yemeni Vienna, Austria 4. A.F.A.K. 1998 Yemeni Vienna, Austria 5. Y.A.K. 2000 Yemeni Vienna, Austria 6. A.K.A.K. 2004 Yemeni Vienna, Austria 7. E.A.K. 2008 Yemeni Vienna, Austria