CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s3E622308 { width:72.66%; margin-left:13.95pt; border-collapse:collapse } .s25B54AE2 { width:10.68%; 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 } .s860E3E37 { width:26.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s21382FE5 { width:37.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6ADE1CC2 { width:25.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA8396420 { width:10.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB878F164 { width:26.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8C6AE65 { width:37.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5A8D6ED0 { width:25.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } Published on 29 April 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 36527/21 A.A. and Others against Greece lodged on 16 July 2021 communicated on 10 April 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the living conditions and the alleged lack of medical treatment of the applicants (a family composed of father and two minor children) in Lesvos (in the Moria Reception and Identification Centre (RIC), on the streets after the fire in Moria broke out and in the Mavrovouni RIC). The first applicant suffers inter alia from hematuria, the second and third applicants each suffer inter alia from dysraphism. The applicants rely on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. They further complain that the Government have not implemented the interim measures indicated by the Court. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the applicants’ state of health, has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of their medical treatment?   2.     Do the applicants’ living conditions in the Moria RIC, on the streets after the fire in Moria broke out and in the Mavrovouni RIC constitute an «on-going situation» within the meaning of the Court’s case-law (see mutatis mutandis Kalandia v. Greece , application no. 48684/15, § 63, 6 October 2016; Bouros and others v. Greece , applications nos. 51653/12 and 4 other applications, § 64-66, 12 March 2015   ; Ananyev and others v. Russia , applications nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 77, 10 January 2012)?   3.     Were the applicants’ living conditions in Lesvos (in the Moria RIC, on the streets after the fire in Moria broke out and in the Mavrovouni RIC) compatible with Article 3 of the Convention?   4.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective remedy to complain about the alleged inhuman and degrading treatment suffered under Article 3, as required under Article 13 of the Convention?   5.     Having regard to the measures taken in response to the Court’s decision to indicate interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, was there a hindrance by the State with the effective exercise of the applicants’ right of application, ensured by Article 34 of the Convention (see Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos.   46827/99 and 46951/99, §§   128-129, ECHR 2005 ‑ I)? Was there an objective impediment which prevented compliance with the Court’s interim measures? If so, did the Government take all reasonable steps to remove the impediment and to keep the Court informed of the situation (see Paladi v.   Moldova [GC], no.   39806/05, § 92, 10 July 2009, and Rrapo v.   Albania, no.   58555/10, § 75-88, 25 September 2012)?     APPENDIX Application no. 36527/21 No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality 1. A. A. 1985 Syrian 2. M. A. 2016 Syrian 3. M. N. A. 2010 Syrian