Published on 29 March 2021

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 50872/18 F.S. and A.S . against Hungary lodged on 22 October 2018 communicated on 9 March 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the confinement of two unaccompanied minor Afghan nationals, who are brothers, at the Röszke transit zone on the border of Hungary and Serbia between 24 October 2017 and 24 April 2018, pending the examination of their asylum request. They invoke Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 in this regard.

Invoking Article 3, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13, they further complain about the allegedly inhuman or degrading conditions they were subjected to during their stay in the transit zone, the authorities ’ failure to appoint a guardian for them, the alleged lack of appropriate measures that would normally be required with respect to specific needs of children, lack of psychological support and the lack of effective remedy in this regard.

Lastly, under Article 8 taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13, the applicants complain about the same issues as those raised under Article 3 as well as about the process and outcome of their age assessments and of the lack of effective remedy in this regard.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was there a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicants ’ living conditions and their treatment in the Röszke border transit zone, having regard in particular to their vulnerable status (see, mutatis mutandis , Popov v. France , nos. 39472/07 and 39474/07, § 91, 19 January 2012)?

2. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their above complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

3. Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in the transit zone in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (compare Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary [GC], no. 47287/15, §§ 217-249, 21 November 2019, and Z.A. and Others v. Russia [GC] , nos. 61411/15 and 3 others, §§ 138-171, 21 November 2019)?

4. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective procedure by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?

5. As regards their complaint under Article 8 of the Convention about the age assessment procedure, have the applicants complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

6. Has there been a violation of Article 8 on account of the manner in which the applicants ’ age was assessed?

7. Did the applicants have at their disposal, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, an effective domestic remedy by which they could challenge the procedure for determining their age and the alleged violation of their rights under Article 8 of the Convention?

8. Was there a violation of the applicants ’ private and family life under Article 8 of the Convention on account of their living conditions and their treatment in the Röszke border transit zone (with respect to family life, see, mutatis mutandis , Popov v. France , nos. 39472/07 and 39474/07, § 134, 19 January 2012).

APPENDIX

No.

Applicant's Name

Year of birth

Nationality

F.S.

2003Afghan

A.S.

2011Afghan