Published on 14 June 2021

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 14969/20 E.A. and H.A.A. against Greece and 5 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 25 May 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE S

The applications concern the living conditions of the applicants, pregnant women at the time of lodging the applications with the Court or mothers with their new-born babies. They lived either in tents in the forest outside Samos hotspot, or in a container inside the hotspot. The applicants requested interim measures under Rule 39 of the Court, which were granted (except for applicant no. 1 in application no. 43170/20).

The applicants invoke Article 3 of the Convention. The applicants in applications nos. 14969/20, 17828/20, 24143/20 and 43170/20 also complain under Article 8 of the Convention and the applicants in applications nos. 17828/20 and 43170/20 further invoke Article 13 of the Convention. Lastly, several of the applicants complain that the Government have not implemented the interim measures ordered by the Court.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to the fact that the applicants were pregnant at an advanced stage or mothers with new-born babies, were their living conditions inside or near Samos hotspot compatible with Article 3 and/or Article 8 of the Convention?

2. In respect of applications nos. 14969/20, 17182/20 (concerning adequate healthcare compatible with the first applicant ’ s state of health in view of the document from Samos hospital dated 31/01/2020) and 43170/20 (relating to applicant no. 4), having regard to the measures taken in response to the Court ’ s decisions to indicate interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, was there a hindrance by the State with the effective exercise of the applicants ’ right of application, ensured by 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)?

3. In respect of applicant no. 1 in application no. 17182/20, did she receive appropriate medical care for her health problems (epilepsy) in accordance with the requirements under Article 3 of the Convention?

4. Did the applicants in applications nos. 17828/20 and 43170/20 have at their disposal an effective remedy as required under Article 13 of the Convention to complain about their living conditions?

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant Year of Birth Nationality

Represented by

1.

14969/20

E.A. and H.A.A. v. Greece

24/03/2020

E.A. 1989 Syrian H.A.A. 2020 Syrian

Jenny FLEISCHER

2.

17182/20

A.H. and K.A. v. Greece

24/04/2020

A.H. 1995 Syrian K.A. 2020 Syrian

Ingrid METTON

3.

17828/20

R.A. and Y.A. v. Greece

22/12/2020

R.A. 1995 Syrian Y.A. 2020 Syrian

Ingrid METTON

4.

24143/20

A.K. and J.N.S. v. Greece

22/06/2020

A.K. 1999 Ghanian J.N.S. 2020 Ghanian

Jenny FLEISCHER

5.

31933/20

N.M. and X.M. v. Greece

30/07/2020

N.M. 1994 Congolese X.M. Congolese

Ingrid METTON

6.

43170/20

Z.H. and Others v. Greece

01/10/2020

Z.H. 1998 Afghan

F.G. 1998 Afghan N.E. 1994 Congolese R.N. 2000 Congolese X.N. 2020 Congolese

Ingrid METTON