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 } Published on 23 May 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 37641/19 H.L. against Hungary lodged on 16 July 2019 communicated on 3 May 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the confinement of an Iraqi national in the Tompa transit zone at the border of Hungary and Serbia between 9 July 2019 and 21 May 2020, following the initiation of an alien policing (expulsion) procedure against him. He invokes 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, he complains about the allegedly inhuman or degrading conditions in which he was held during his stay in the transit zone (including not being provided with food for seven days), the violation of his right to private life in such conditions and the lack of an effective remedy in this regard. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in the border transit zone in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention pending the alien policing procedure (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 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 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 applicant’s living conditions and his treatment in the border transit zone, (compare R.R. and Others v.   Hungary, no. 36037/17, §§ 48-57, 2 March 2021)?   4.     Was there a violation of the applicant’s private life under Article 8 of the Convention on account of his confinement and treatment in the border transit zone?   5.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his above complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?