CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 février 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 } .s2A7D9A9F { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA1A59DDF { width:67.45pt; display:inline-block } .s686A4ABF { width:29.83pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sC5646C2D { width:104.1%; border-collapse:collapse } .s6F2124C9 { width:7.5%; 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 } .sDC133609 { width:25.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4F1AA88F { width:18.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s91EDA678 { width:17.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8A19AABE { width:30.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8BEB5711 { width:7.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB6F4F9FF { width:25.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7792C3D1 { width:18.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5F28D861 { width:17.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s28240A98 { width:30.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 14 March 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 16217/19 M.D.A. and Others against Hungary lodged on 26 March 2019 communicated on 21 February 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the confinement of the applicant family in the Röszke transit zone at the border of Hungary and Serbia between 9   January and 7 May 2019, pending domestic proceedings following the submission of their asylum requests. They invoke Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. Furthermore, relying on Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13, they complain about the allegedly inhuman or degrading conditions in which they were held during their stay in the transit zone, the violation of their private and family life in such conditions and the lack of an effective remedy in this regard. Lastly, they allege that Hungary violated Article 34 of the Convention by failing to comply with the Court’s interim measure indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court on 26   March   2019, asking the Government to ensure that the environment where the family was placed complied with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention, taking into account the presence of minors.     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?   6.     Having regard to the alleged lack of measures taken by the respondent Government in response to the Court’s indication of 26 March 2019 under Rule   39 of the Rules of Court, was there a hindrance by the State in the present case with the effective exercise of the applicants’ right of application, guaranteed by Article 34 of the Convention?       LIST OF APPLICANTS     No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. M.D.A. 1978 Afghan Oldenburg, Germany 2. A.A.A. 2015 Afghan Oldenburg, Germany 3. M.A. 2013 Afghan Oldenburg, Germany 4. M.A.A. 2002 Afghan Oldenburg, Germany 5. R.A. 2006 Afghan Oldenburg, Germany 6. S.A. 1988 Afghan Oldenburg, Germany