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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3D9F2A26 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s2E91A821 { width:115.76%; border-collapse:collapse } .s71ABD0E { width:11.68%; 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 } .sFF6C7D8D { width:35%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sCF1EA289 { width:13.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA1A9243B { width:16.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s24355430 { width:23.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2CD2DDD1 { width:11.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9238EAFB { width:35%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s14893682 { width:13.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4C6C1307 { width:16.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s51BEA53B { width:23.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 23 May 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 58680/18 M.A. and Others against Hungary lodged on 28 November 2018 communicated on 3 May 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the confinement of an Afghan family of five – two adults and three minors – in the Röszke transit zone at the border of Hungary and Serbia between 20 February and 31 May 2018, pending the examination of their asylum requests. 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 further complain about the allegedly inhuman or degrading conditions in which they were held during their stay in the transit zone – including the alleged lack of appropriate mental health treatment with respect to the first applicant –, 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 (see R.R. and Others v.   Hungary , no. 36037/17, §§ 74-92, 2 March 2021)?   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 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 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 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?     List of applicants   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. M.A. 1982 Afghan Braunschweig, Germany 2. F.A. 1980 Afghan Braunschweig, Germany 3. M.A.A. 2007 Afghan Braunschweig, Germany 4. M.O.A. 2009 Afghan Braunschweig, Germany 5. D.A. 2017 Afghan Braunschweig, Germany