CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 janvier 2021

.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 } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { 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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Communicated on 4 January 2021 Published on 25 January 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 11216/20 N.A. against Greece and 8 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the living conditions of the applicants, pregnant women at the time of lodging their applications with the Court. They lived either in tents in the forest outside the hotspot, or in a container inside the hotspot. The applicants requested interim measures under Rule 39 of the Court, which were granted. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the fact that the applicants were pregnant at an advanced stage, were their living conditions compatible with Article 3 and/or Article   8 of the Convention? Were the living conditions of the applicants transferred to containers compatible with Article 3 and/or Article   8 of the Convention?   2.     In respect of application no. 16043/20, having regard to the measures taken in response to the Court’s decisions 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 applicant’s 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 Rule   39 measure granted by the Court? 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)?   3     In case 36856/20, did the applicant have an effective remedy for her complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?     APPENDIX Click here to enter text. No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Year of Birth Place of Residence Represented by 1 11216/20 N.A. v. Greece 27/02/2020 1989 Vathy Jenny FLEISCHER 2 11483/20 Z.R. v. Greece 01/03/2020 1986 Vathy Jenny FLEISCHER 3 15092/20 R.A. v. Greece 24/03/2020 2001 Samos Jenny FLEISCHER 4 15470/20 F.H. v. Greece 30/03/2020 1999 Vathy Samos Ingrid METTON 5 16043/20 F.H. v. Greece 09/04/2020 1994 Vathy Samos Jenny FLEISCHER 6 19995/20 S.I. v. Greece 18/05/2020 1998 Vathy Samos Jenny FLEISCHER 7 20974/20 A.D. v. Greece 27/05/2020 1994 Samos Jenny FLEISCHER 8 24427/20 R.A. v. Greece 23/06/2020 1998 Samos Ingrid METTON 9 36856/20 S.J. v. Greece 23/09/2020 1996 Samos Ingrid METTON