CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 juin 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 23 June 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 38043/21 M.A. against Greece lodged on 29 July 2021 communicated on 2 June 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the living conditions of the applicant, a seven ‑ months pregnant woman at the time of lodging her application with the Court. According to the applicant, following her arrival in Greece, she and her family were held in quarantine in Kara Tepe for 59 days under dire and destabilising conditions before they were placed in a tent in Mavrovouni Reception and Identification Centre (RIC) in Lesvos, where she got pregnant. On 30 July 2021 interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court were indicated to the Government of Greece in respect of the applicant. The applicant invokes Articles 3 and 34 of the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the applicant’s vulnerability as a pregnant woman, were her living conditions in Kara Tepe and Mavrovouni RIC and the restrictions imposed on her compatible with Article 3 of the Convention?   2.     Have the Greek authorities complied with the interim measures applied by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and indicating 1) to guarantee to the applicant living conditions compatible with Article 3 of the Convention having regard to her state of health and 2) to provide the applicant with adequate healthcare compatible with her state of health? If not, had it resulted in a hindrance by the State of effective exercise of the applicant’s right of application under Article 34 of the Convention (see Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos.   46827/99 and 46951/99, §§   128-129, ECHR 2005 ‑ I)? Was there an objective impediment which prevented compliance with the Court’s interim measures? If so, did the Government take all reasonable steps to remove the impediment and to keep the Court informed of the situation (see Paladi v.   Moldova [GC], no.   39806/05, § 92, 10 July 2009, and Rrapo v.   Albania, no.   58555/10, § 75-88, 25 September 2012)?