Published on 29 March 2021

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 49231/18 Soheil Ahmad AZIZI against Hungary lodged on 11 October 2018 communicated on 9 March 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the confinement of an unaccompanied minor of Afghan nationality at the Röszke transit zone on the border of Hungary and Serbia between 8 February and 11 April 2018, pending the examination of his asylum request. The applicant invokes Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention in this respect.

It also concerns the allegedly inhuman and degrading conditions he was subjected to during his stay in the transit zone and the alleged lack of appropriate measures that would normally be required with respect to specific needs of children. He complains of a violation of Article 3 taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention in this connection.

Lastly, the applicant complains, under Article 8 taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention, about the process and outcome of the medical assessment that was carried out on 8 February 2018 for the purposes of determining his age.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

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

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

3. Was the applicant deprived of his 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 applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of the detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?

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

6. Having regard to the manner in which the applicant ’ s age was assessed, has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private life, under Article 8 of the Convention?

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