Lexploria - Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Lexploria beta Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Menu
Browsing history:

P.S. AND A.M. v. HUNGARY and 3 other applications

Doc ref: 53272/17;652/18;44283/19;47321/19 • ECHR ID: 001-215661

Document date: January 17, 2022

  • Inbound citations: 1
  • Cited paragraphs: 0
  • Outbound citations: 3

P.S. AND A.M. v. HUNGARY and 3 other applications

Doc ref: 53272/17;652/18;44283/19;47321/19 • ECHR ID: 001-215661

Document date: January 17, 2022

Cited paragraphs only

Published on 7 February 2022

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 53272/17 P.S. and A.M. against Hungary and 3 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 17 January 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES

The applications concern the confinement of the applicants in Hungarian transit zones at the border with Serbia pending the examination of their asylum requests. They invoke Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. Moreover, relying on Article 3 of the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13, they further complain about the allegedly inhuman or degrading conditions in which they were held in the transit zones and the lack of an effective remedy in this respect. The applicants’ details and specific circumstances are set out in the appendix.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ living conditions and their treatment in the border transit zones, having regard to their particular circumstances (see R.R. and Others v. Hungary , no. 36037/17, §§ 48-52 and 58-65, 2 March 2021)?

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

3. Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in the border transit zones 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 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 (see R.R. and Others v. Hungary , no. 36037/17, §§ 97-99, 2 March 2021)?

Appendix

List of applications

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality

Represented by

Place and period of detention

Vulnerable status/special needs of the applicant

1.

53272/17

P.S. and A.M. v. Hungary

26/07/2017

P.S.

Dohuk Iraqi 1986

A.M.

2012 Dohuk Iraqi

Barbara POHÁRNOK

Tompa transit zone

30/03/2017 – 26/07/2017

Alleged victim of domestic violence

Alleged victim of domestic violence

Food allergy

2.

652/18

M.H. v. Hungary

29/12/2017

M.H.

1999 Mogyoród Afghan

Szabolcs Miklós SÁNTA

Röszke and Tompa transit zones

06/04/2017 – 30/06/2017

Unaccompanied minor

3.

44283/19

M.S.H. v. Hungary

15/08/2019

M.S.H.

1994 Rotenburg a. d. Fulda Iranian

Szabolcs Miklós SÁNTA

Tompa transit zone

18/01/2018 – 19/02/2019

4.

47321/19

S.H. v. Hungary

04/09/2019

S.H. 1991 Ehrenberg Iranian

Szabolcs Miklós SÁNTA

Tompa transit zone

18/01/2018 – 04/03/2019

Alleged victim of sexual and gender-based violence

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2024
Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 398107 • Paragraphs parsed: 43931842 • Citations processed 3409255