CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 mars 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s58B8AE49 { clear:both; mso-column-break-before:always } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sC8BA95E7 { width:108.02%; border-collapse:collapse } .s487B7E29 { width:7.18%; 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 } .sBBE6F554 { width:37.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6DE99F78 { width:26.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDB11A9D2 { width:28.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEEAFF8A5 { width:7.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s96C78B31 { width:37.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s659AD20D { width:26.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s998D7296 { width:28.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 11 April 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 44245/20 F.W. and Others against Hungary lodged on 18 September 2020 communicated on 25 March 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the removal of the applicant family (Afghan nationals – see appended list for details) from Hungary after their apprehension at the Budapest airport on 20 December 2019. The applicants, who had arrived from Dubai and had been found by the Hungarian officials to be in possession of counterfeit passports, submitted asylum requests at the airport. These have allegedly not been processed. The applicants were subjected to the “apprehension and escort” measure under the Hungarian State Borders Act and removed from Hungarian territory to the external side of the Hungarian border fence (on the border with Serbia) on the same day. They remained in Serbia for several months, allegedly without access to the asylum procedure, before eventually getting to Germany where they currently reside. The applicants complain that they were part of a collective expulsion, in breach of Article 4 of Protocol No.   4 to the Convention. They furthermore complain under Article 3 of the Convention that they were expelled to Serbia, where no adequate asylum procedure was available, without any assessment of the consequences of their removal for their Article 3 rights and in breach of the procedural obligation under this provision. They also complain under Article   13 in conjunction with Article 4 of Protocol No.   4 and Article 3 that they had no effective remedy at their disposal as regards the complaints.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the applicants, aliens in the respondent State, expelled collectively, in breach of Article   4 of Protocol No.   4 to the Convention (compare Shahzad v.   Hungary , no. 12625/17, §§ 45-52 and 60-68, 8   July 2021)?   2.     Did the respondent State comply with its procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to assess the risks of treatment contrary to that provision before removing the applicants from Hungary (see Ilias and Ahmed v.   Hungary [GC], no. 47287/15, in particular §§ 129-134, 141, 148 and 163, 21   November 2019)?   3.     Did the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies for their above complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? List of Applicants   No. Applicant’s name Year of birth Nationality 1. F. W. 1959 Afghan 2. N. W. 1996 Afghan 3. H. W. 2001 Afghan