Published on 29 November 2021

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 22463/17 S.B. and Others against Serbia lodged on 8 February 2017 communicated on 9 November 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application essentially concerns the confinement of an Afghani family of six, including vulnerable asylum seekers (for details, see the attached appendix) in the Preševo Reception Camp, in allegedly inhuman conditions, between December 2016 and June 2017. The applicants, who are represented by Mr Tegebauer, a lawyer practising in Trier, failed to address any authority in Serbia. The lawyer informed the Court on 14 June 2021 that the applicants have been placed in the Vranje Reception Camp, without however complaining about the conditions thereof.

The applicants complain that the substandard living conditions they faced while confined in the Preševo Reception Camp constituted inhuman and degrading treatment incompatible with the guarantees of Article 3 of the Convention.

They further complain, under Article 5 of the Convention, that their confinement constituted an unlawful, arbitrary and unjustified deprivation of liberty. In particular, they were allowed to leave the camp only once a week, for a period of four hours, and on the condition of seeking permission two days in advance.

Lastly, the applicants were not informed, in their native or any other language, about the reasons for their alleged deprivation of liberty or about any legal remedy available to them so that they could raise their grievances. They claim that they should be dispensed from the obligation to avail themselves of domestic remedies in view of their precarious situation and the lack of any information available to them in their native language.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the Preševo Reception Camp in southern Serbia been under the authority of the Commissariat for Refugees and Migration or the Government and/or its Ministries? What is the legal avenue, if any, to be pursued in case of the complaints concerning the conditions or daily regime in this Camp?

2. In view of all the circumstances, have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was any remedy, including the constitutional appeal, an effective remedy within the meaning of this provision in respect of the applicants’ complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention?

3. Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in the Preševo Reception Camp, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? Did the living conditions in the Camp amount to inhuman or degrading treatment, particularly having regard to the vulnerability of some applicants (see, for example, M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, § 223-234, ECHR 2011; R.R. and Others v. Hungary , no. 36037/17, §§ 48-65, 2 March 2021; Sh.D. and Others v. Greece, Austria, Croatia, Hungary, North Macedonia, Serbia and Slovenia , no. 14165/16, §§ 52-62, 13 June 2019; N.T.P. and Others v. France , no. 68862/13, §§ 42-49, 24 May 2018; and J.R. and Others v. Greece , no. 22696/16, §§ 136-147, 25 January 2018)? The respondent Government are invited to comment on the applicants’ allegations and the supporting material supplied by them in this respect.

4. Is Article 5 of the Convention applicable in the present case (see Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary [GC], no. 47287/15, §§ 217 and 231-249, 21 November 2019; R.R. and Others v. Hungary , cited above, §§ 74-83; and J.R. and Others v. Greece , cited above, §§ 83-87)? If so, what was the particular ground for the applicants’ deprivation of liberty and did it the fell within the first or second limb of paragraph (f) of this provision?

5. Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in the PreÅ¡evo Reception Camp in breach of Article 5 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, ECHR 2008; Popov v. France , nos. 39472/07 and 39474/07, 19 January 2012; and Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v. Belgium , no. 13178/03, ECHR 2006 ‑ XI)?

6. Was the applicants’ confinement “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” (see, mutatis mutandis , Suso Musa v. Malta , no. 42337/12, §§ 94-107, 23 July 2013, and Z.A. and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 61411/15 and 3 others, §§ 159-63, 21 November 2019)?

7. Were the applicants informed promptly, in a language which they understood, of the reasons for their alleged deprivation of liberty, as required by Article 5 § 2 of the Convention (see Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, § 115, 15 December 2016; and J.R. and Others v. Greece , cited above, §§ 121-124)?

8. Were the applicants deprived of any remedy which would have enabled them to assert with a competent national authority their rights guaranteed by Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

Lastly, the Government are invited to clarify and submit copies of the relevant legal framework and/or practice concerning (a) legal status of the Preševo Reception Camp; (b) the regulations on daily regime at the relevant time; (c) the regulation and procedure for seeking permission to leave the reception centre at the relevant time, and (d) the practice of the competent authorities, if any, concerning the individual complaints about the material conditions in this Camp.

APPENDIX

No.

Applicant’s Name

Gender

Year of birth

Nationality

1.S.B.

M

1991Afghan

2.A.B.

F

1993Afghan

3.E.B.

M

1961Afghan

4.F.B.

F

1960Afghan

5.M.B.

M

2016Afghan

6.Sh.B.

M

1998Afghan