CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 mai 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 } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sF531D55 { width:88.48%; margin-left:28.5pt; border-collapse:collapse } .s47B46F7 { width:8.76%; 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 } .s5253A39E { width:21.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD7994112 { width:30.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5A1DC15 { width:20.96%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s283897E7 { width:18.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4E42D546 { width:8.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s17D09FBB { width:21.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5B3C04F3 { width:30.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC12404AB { width:20.96%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBE8A9321 { width:18.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s31316575 { height:32.35pt } .s37AA5D7A { height:29.95pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } Published on 23 May 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 13899/19 Z.L. and Others against Hungary lodged on 13 March 2019 communicated on 3 May 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the confinement of an Afghan family of five – a single mother and her one adult and three minor children – in the Röszke transit zone at the border of Hungary and Serbia. The applicants were held in the transit zone between 10 December 2018 and 21 May 2020, first pending the examination of their asylum requests, and from 12 March 2019 onwards – following the rejection of these requests – pending the alien policing (expulsion) procedure. Domestic authorities apparently did not provide food to the first and second applicant from 12 until 16 March 2019. They invoke Article 5 §§   1 and 4 of the Convention. Moreover, relying on Articles 3 and   8 of the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13, they complain about the allegedly inhuman or degrading conditions in which they were held during their stay in the transit zone, the violation of their private and/or family life in such conditions and the lack of an effective remedy in this regard.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in the border transit zone in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention pending the asylum and alien policing procedures (compare R.R. and Others v.   Hungary , no. 36037/17, §§   74-92, 2 March 2021 and Nabil and Others v. Hungary , no. 62116/12, §§   26 ‑ 35, 22 September 2015)?   2.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective procedure by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their detention, as required by Article   5 § 4 of the Convention (see R.R. and Others v. Hungary , no.   36037/17, §§   97-99, 2 March 2021)?   3.     Was there a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ living conditions and their treatment while staying in the border transit zone, having regard to their particular circumstances (see R.R. and Others v.   Hungary , no. 36037/17, §§ 48-65, 2 March 2021 and, as regards the detention pending expulsion, Popov v. France , nos. 39472/07 and 39474/07, §§   89-105, 19 January 2012)?   4.     Was there a violation of the applicants’ private and/or family life under Article 8 of the Convention on account of their confinement and treatment while staying in the border transit zone (with respect to family life see, mutatis mutandis , Popov v. France , nos. 39472/07 and 39474/07, §§ 132-148, 19   January 2012)?   5.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their above complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   APPENDIX   List of applicants     No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Z.L. 1969 Afghan Austria 2. J.R. 1999   Afghan Austria 3. A.R. 2001 Afghan Austria 4. H.R. 2003 Afghan Austria 5. M.R. 2006 Afghan Austria