CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 mai 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s1E56514F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s943D4F93 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:21.8pt; text-align:justify } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s21825623 { width:110.96%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s94310BD4 { width:6.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s743D0535 { width:16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA13EBEE1 { width:13.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8AC80224 { width:15.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3BDC173A { width:14.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7A95CEF3 { width:33.4%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s70C856F9 { width:6.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s1F8511FC { width:16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFA694C35 { width:13.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2D7E242A { width:15.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s27855A4F { width:14.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s63EC1966 { width:33.4%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 3 June 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 28795/16 N.A.A. and Others against Greece and North Macedonia lodged on 22 June 2016 communicated on 17 May 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The four applicants are a woman (applicant no. 1) with her three children (applicants nos. 2-4). Applicant no. 1 alleges that she suffers from medical problems relating to her eyes. The applicants entered the Greek territory in February 2016. On an unspecified date, they arrived at the Idomeni makeshift camp in Greece, close to the border with North Macedonia. According to their submissions, the applicants moved to Germany after lodging their applications before the Court, have been granted international protection there and were reunited with their nuclear family members. They allege that, together with a large group of refugees in what became known as “the March of Hope”, they crossed the border to North Macedonia wading across a river. On 15 March 2016 soldiers threatened the refugees, including the applicants, with violence unless they returned to Greece until they arrived back in Idomeni, Greece. On 10 April 2016 the applicants together with a large group of refugees went on to protest on the border of North Macedonia against stricter migration laws adopted in that country earlier that month. The protest was allegedly dispersed by border officials of North Macedonia who used tear-gas, rubber bullets and water guns targeting the refugees and the Idomeni camp on the Greek territory. On the same day a representative of the applicants complained of the above incidents before the Greek Prosecutor of Kilkis and the Ministry of the Interior of North Macedonia. According to them, on 13 April 2016 similar incidents took place in which border officials of North Macedonia employed tear-gas to disperse the refugees nearby the border fence, on the Greek territory. The applicants allege that the Greek officials did not intervene during these incidents. They claim that, as a result of the above events, they fell unconscious and were seriously injured and traumatised. Shortly after, through a human rights lawyer practicing in Skopje, they asked for non-refoulement and admission to North Macedonia. On 14 April 2016 a military exercise took place around the Idomeni camp and on 24 May 2016 the camp was forcibly evacuated with the assistance of the riot police. On 26 May 2016 the Duty Judge refused to indicate interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court requested by the applicants on 24   May 2016. The applicants complain that the living conditions at the Idomeni makeshift camp between March and May 2016 were contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, in particular in view of the alleged medical condition of applicant no. 1. Under Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention, the applicants complain in respect of the events of 10 and 13 April 2016 that they had been allegedly ill ‑ treated by border officials of North Macedonia. Further, under Articles 3 and 8, the applicants complain of the military exercise of 14 April 2016 conducted by the Greek army, considering that it was made to terrorise them. They also complain about the evacuation, on 24   May 2016, of the Idomeni makeshift camp, considering that it was made with force and with the participation of the riot police, in a chaotic manner and without concern to preserve family unity and any information being provided to the applicants about their destination. Additionally, under the procedural limb of Article 3, the applicants complain about the absence of an effective investigation of the above facts, although they notified the authorities on 10 April 2016. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES To the Government of Greece:   1.     Having regard to the applicants’ situation, were their living conditions in Idomeni camp between March and May 2016 compatible with the requirements of Article   3 of the Convention (see Sh.D. and Others v.   Greece, Austria, Croatia, Hungary, North Macedonia, Serbia and Slovenia , no. 14165/16, §§ 52-62, 13 June 2019)?   2.     Has there been a violation of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention in view of the military exercise of 14 April 2016 around the Idomeni camp and the evacuation of the Idomeni camp of 24 May 2016? To the Government of North Macedonia :   3.     Have the applicants exhausted the domestic remedies in North Macedonia, within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, in respect of their complaints under Article   3 regarding the incidents of 10   and 13 April 2016? To both respondent Governments:   4.     Did the facts for which the applicants complain in the present case, in particular the incidents of 10 and 13 April 2016, occur within the jurisdiction of Νοrth Macedonia and/or Greece (see, mutatis mutandis , N.D. and N.T. v.   Spain [GC], nos. 8675/15 and 8697/15, §§ 102-110, 13   February 2020, and A.A. and Others v. North Macedonia , nos.   55798/16 and 4 others, §§ 63-64, 5 April 2022, with further references)?   5.     Were the applicants subjected to ill-treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention, during the incidents of 10 and 13 April 2016 (see Bouyid v. Belgium   [GC], no.   23380/09 , §§ 81-90, ECHR 2015, and Feilazoo v. Malta, no.   6865/19 , §   80, 11   March   2021), due to actions of the authorities of Greece and North Macedonia? Did the treatment attain a   minimum level of severity   (see   Ali Güneş v. Turkey , no.   9829/07 , §§   37 ‑ 43, 10 April 2012)?   The applicants are requested to provide copies of all medical reports concerning the injuries allegedly suffered during the incidents of 10 and 13   April 2016, if available, and any other relevant documents.   6.     Have the competent authorities of Greece and North Macedonia conducted an adequate investigation into the applicants’ allegations of ill ‑ treatment during the incidents of 10 and 13 April 2016, as required by the procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention?     APPENDIX (anonymity has been granted) List of applicants: Application no. 28795/16 No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence Representative 1. N. A. 1973 Syrian Germany Electra-Leda KOUTRA 2. A. O. 1999 Syrian Germany Electra-Leda KOUTRA 3. S. O. 2006 Syrian Germany Electra-Leda KOUTRA 4. S. O. 2004 Syrian Germany Electra-Leda KOUTRA