CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 juillet 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 25 July 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 82479/17 K.P. against Hungary lodged on 3 December 2017 communicated on 8 July 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the removal of the applicant, who is an Iraqi national of Kurdish origin, from Hungary. After being handed over from the Austrian Police to the Hungarian officers on 3 June 2017 and detained in a police station in Hegyeshalom (Hungary), the applicant and two other migrants were transported by the Hungarian officers to the border fence and made to go towards the direction of Serbia on 5 June 2017. It would appear that the applicant’s 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 sixteen years old at the time. 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 from Hungary 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)?