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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 11 April 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 71/18 R.N. against Hungary lodged on 17 December 2017 communicated on 25 March 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the removal of the applicant, who is a Pakistani national, from Hungary, on 21 June 2017. He was removed together with ten other migrants after being allegedly repeatedly physically assaulted by a “field guard”. It would appear that his removal was based on the Hungarian State Borders Act, which authorised the Hungarian police to apprehend and “escort” foreign nationals staying illegally in Hungary to the external side of the Hungarian border fence (on the border with Serbia) without a decision. The applicant was at that time fourteen years old and unaccompanied. The applicant complains that he was part of a collective expulsion, in breach of Article 4 of Protocol No.   4 to the Convention. He also complains under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 4 of Protocol   No.   4 that he had no effective remedy at his disposal. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant, an alien in the respondent State, expelled collectively, in breach of Article   4 of Protocol No.   4 to the Convention (see Shahzad v.   Hungary , no. 12625/17, §§ 60-68, 8 July 2021)?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his above complaint, as required by Article   13 of the Convention (see Shahzad , cited above, §§ 77-79)?