Published on 23 May 2022

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 30056/18 Z.A. against Hungary lodged on 15 June 2018 communicated on 3 May 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the confinement of an Afghan unaccompanied minor in the Röszke transit zone at the border of Hungary and Serbia between 2 November and 18 December 2017, pending the examination of his asylum request. On 15 December 2017 he was granted subsidiary protection and was subsequently moved to a children’s home in Fót. The applicant was sixteen years old at the time. During his stay in the transit zone, he was residing in the sector for unaccompanied boys, sharing a container with four other minors. He was appointed an ad hoc guardian, who he met on one occasion.

The applicant invokes Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. Moreover, relying on Article 3 of the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13, he further complains about the allegedly inhuman or degrading conditions in which he was held in the transit zone and the lack of an effective remedy in this respect.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s living conditions and his treatment in the border transit zone, having regard in particular to the fact that he was staying in the transit zone as an unaccompanied minor (see R.R. and Others v. Hungary , no. 36037/17, §§ 48-52 and 58-65, 2 March 2021; Khan v. France , no. 12267/16, § 74, 28 February 2019; Popov v. France , nos. 39472/07 and 39474/07, § 90, 19 January 2012; and Abdullahi Elmi and Aweys Abubakar v. Malta , nos. 25794/13 and 28151/13, §§ 103, 104 and 111, 22 November 2016)?

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

3. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in the border transit zone in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see R.R. and Others v. Hungary , no. 36037/17, §§ 74-92, 2 March 2021)?

4. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see R.R. and Others v. Hungary , no. 36037/17, §§ 97 ‑ 99, 2 March 2021)?