CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 avril 2024

.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 } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } Published on 22 April 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 33674/22 A.M. against Poland lodged on 12 July 2022 communicated on 5 April 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present application concerns the migration crisis on the Polish ‑ Belarusian border. The applicant is a Yemeni national and an ex-soldier who fled his country of origin in fear of being persecuted and killed by Houthi militias. In July 2022 he tried to enter Poland in an irregular manner at least three times, including on 11 July 2022. He complains under Articles 2 and 3 alone and in substance in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention that on at least two occasions the Polish authorities ignored his requests for international protection and that, instead, they pushed him back to the Belarusian side of the border. He was expelled from Polish territory without any formal decision or any decision against which he could effectively appeal. As the Belarusian authorities forced him back towards the Polish side, the applicant was stranded in the border forest area without food, water, and shelter for about two weeks. He was eventually returned to Belarus which he subsequently left for a third country. On 12 July 2022 the Court applied Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The interim measure was lifted on 8 August 2022.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the facts related to situation on the Polish-Belarusian border of which the applicant complains fall within the jurisdiction of Poland? 2.     If so, having regard to the positive obligations of a Contracting State to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction and to ensure that they are not subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, did the applicant’s situation on the Polish ‑ Belarusian border amount to a violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention? In particular, reference is made to the fact that the applicant allegedly found himself wandering in forests without food, water and shelter (see   Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v.   Romania   [GC], no.   47848/08, §§   130 ‑ 131 and §§   143-44;   X   and Others v.   Bulgaria   [GC], no.   22457/16, §§   181 ‑ 83, 2   February 2021; and   mutatis mutandis   M.S.S.   v.   Belgium and Greece   [GC], no.   30696/09, §§   249 ‑ 64, ECHR 2011)? 3.     Was the refusal of the domestic authorities to review the applicant’s applications for international protection in breach of Article   3 of the Convention? In particular, before deciding on his return, did the Polish authorities consider the risk of him being subjected to torture and inhuman treatment if returned to Belarus (see   M.K. and Others v.   Poland , nos.   40503/17   and 2 others, §§   178-182 and 185, 23   July 2020)? 4.     In the light of the applicants’ allegations and the documents which have been submitted, did he face a real risk of being subjected to, or was he subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention after being returned to Belarus? 5.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? Reference is made to the applicant’s allegations that he was expelled from the Polish territory without any formal decision (see M.K. and Others v.   Poland , cited above §§ 147 and 219-220).