CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 octobre 2023

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s9252AC04 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } Published on 6 November 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 1134/23 M.A. and Others against Latvia lodged on 6 January 2023 communicated on 16 October 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns events in the vicinity of the Latvian ‑ Belarusian border from December 2022 until January 2023. The applicants are five Syrian nationals. According to the applicants, on 19 December or 25   December 2022, 30 ‑ 31   December 2022, 4-5 January 2023 they entered Latvia on foot and were either forcibly pushed back on the same day to Belarus, which was not a safe third country, or taken to a large tent located on the Latvian territory, allowed to stay there overnight, and pushed back to Belarus on the following day. The applicants’ requests for asylum were not registered and reviewed by the Latvian authorities at that time, but they allege that fingerprints were taken from them in the tent. On 11 January 2023 the applicants entered Latvia on foot again and applied under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court for interim measures. Subsequently, the Latvian authorities detained the applicants and brought them to a closed accommodation centre for detained foreigners in Daugavpils. There, on 13 January 2023, the applicants were able to submit requests for international protection and those requests were registered. On 14 and 20 February 2023 the applicants were transferred to an open accommodation centre for asylum seekers in Mucenieki. Three applicants subsequently left that centre; they were detained in Poland. According to the latest available information, one applicant has been granted international protection in Latvia; she lives in Riga, Latvia. Four applicants have applied for international protection in the Netherlands and Germany; they are currently residing in those countries. The applicants complain that from December 2022 to January 2023 they were returned to Belarus without their asylum claims having been registered and reviewed by the Latvian authorities. In this respect, they claim that Latvian officials intentionally subjected them to physical and psychological suffering to coerce them to abandon their intention to seek international protection in Latvia and that the conditions in the tent were inadequate (no basic amenities such as food, water, adequate medical care, appropriate shelter and clothing). They also claim that they suffered violent and repeated pushbacks to Belarus, where they suffered from abuse and which was not a safe country. They rely on Article 3, taken alone and in conjunction with Article   13 of the Convention. They also rely on Article 4 of Protocol No.   4 to the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention. Lastly, the applicants allege that the State has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention on account of the fact that their first representative was fined, had criminal proceedings instituted against her, had been prohibited to contact the applicants and had seen her phone seized. Some applicants also allege that their communication with their second representative was obstructed by the Latvian authorities. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the applicants within the jurisdiction of Latvia, within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention, during all the time when the events complained of unfolded? Are all of the events complained of imputable to the Latvian authorities?   2.     Have the applicants been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of the applicants’ allegations of pushbacks, physical violence, verbal abuse and coercion to abandon their intention of seeking international protection in Latvia?   3.     Having regard to the procedural protection from torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, was the domestic authorities’ refusal to examine the applicants’ requests for international protection in December 2022 and January 2023 in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, did the Latvian authorities consider the applicants’ claims that they would be exposed to a risk of being subjected to ill-treatment if returned to Belarus?   4.     Did the Latvian authorities act in breach of their duties stemming from Article   3 of the Convention in that the material and sanitary conditions in the tent in which the applicants were held on the Latvian territory in December 2022 and January 2023 were allegedly inadequate? In particular, did the applicants have access to basic amenities such as food, water, adequate medical care, and appropriate shelter and clothing given the weather conditions?   5.     Were the applicants, aliens in the respondent State, expelled collectively, in breach of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4? Reference is made to the applicants’ allegation that the officials did not allow them access to the asylum procedure in Latvia and held them on the Latvian territory from where they were returned back to Belarus without examination of their personal circumstances.   6.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention and Article   4 of Protocol No. 4, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   7. Has there been any hindrance by the State in the present case with the effective exercise of the applicants’ right of application, ensured by Article   34 of the Convention, on account of the facts relied on by the applicants as regards their first and second representative?   8.     The Government are requested to submit all documents pertaining to the applicants’ complaints – their applications to various domestic authorities, any replies and decisions issued by those authorities, transcripts of interviews held with the applicants etc.     APPENDIX No.   1 List of applicants: Application no. 1134/23 No. Application no. Case name Introduction date Applicant’s name Year of birth Place of residence Nationality 1. 1134/23 M.A. and Others v. Latvia 06/01/2023 M.A. 1996 Riga, Latvia Syrian I.A. 1985 Amsterdam, the Netherlands Syrian S.A. 1978 Wernau, Germany Syrian M.A. 1973 Leipzig, Germany Syrian M.A. 1998 Düsseldorf, Germany Syrian