CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 mars 2025

.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 } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s270DEA8C { width:80.96%; border-collapse:collapse } .sA160E30D { width:9.58%; 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 } .sD916C7E7 { width:30.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6A619118 { width:23.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s187EED77 { width:35.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sAF3B7830 { width:9.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3DC73ED2 { width:30.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3341B7AF { width:23.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD51F2FAF { width:35.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 7 April 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 36142/23 W.B. and Others against Greece lodged on 3 October 2023 communicated on 21 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the allegedly unlawful deprivation of liberty and the living conditions of the applicants, a mother and her three minor children, in the Closed Controlled Access Center (CCAC) of Samos. The applicants arrived in Greece on 15 September 2023 and were taken to the CCAC of Samos, which they were not allowed to leave as long as the reception and identification procedures provided for by Law no. 4939/2022 had not been completed. On 4 October 2024, the applicants lodged objections against their deprivation of liberty with the first-instance Administrative Court of Syros. They complained about their living conditions in the CCAC (including the lack of access to appropriate medical care), stressed the lack of any privacy, because they had to stay in the “general population area” and to share their sleeping quarters with men, and submitted that they had not been issued with any decisions concerning their detention within five days following their admission in the CCAC as provided for by Article 40 of Law no. 4939/2022. On 6 October 2023, the first-instance Administrative Court of Syros rejected the objections on the ground that the applicants’ stay in the CCAC had not exceeded twenty-five days, as provided for by Article 40 of Law   no.   4939/2022. The said court held, however, that the applicants, as vulnerable persons, should be immediately registered and identified, and that they should be transferred without delay to the special zones in the CCAC reserved for the accommodation of single-parent families. On the same day, the authorities registered the applicants’ asylum applications. On 11 October 2023, the applicants were served with decisions to the effect that they were allowed to circulate freely. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the fact that the applicants were a single mother and her three minor children, and with further regard to their allegations about the lack of access to appropriate medical care, were their living conditions in the CCAC of Samos compatible with Article 3 of the Convention?   2.     Did the applicants’ stay in the CCAC of Samos amount to a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?   If so: a) was the applicants’ deprivation of liberty “lawful” and ordered “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”, for the purposes of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? b) were the applicants informed   promptly of the reasons for their deprivation of liberty, as required by Article 5 § 2 of the Convention? c)   did the applicants have at their disposal a remedy by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their deprivation of liberty, as required by Article   5 § 4 of the Convention?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private life, within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention, and in particular their right to   physical and psychological integrity?         APPENDIX Application no. 36142/23 No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality 1. W.B. 1997 Syrian 2. A.D. 2016 Syrian 3. R.D. 2020 Syrian 4. R.D. 2015 Syrian