02 Apr Several human rights violations of asylum seekers in the Hungarian transit zone Roszke

In the case of R.R. and Others v. Hungary (application no. 36037/17, 02.03.2021) the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), and a violation of Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court). 

The case concerned the applicants’ confinement in the Röszke transit zone on the border with Serbia in April-August 2017. The applicants, R.R., S.H., M.H., R.H. and A.R., are an Iranian and four Afghan nationals respectively. They are a family of five. In 2017 applicants arrived in Hungary and applied for asylum there. On 19 April 2017 the Office for Immigration and Asylum ordered that the applicants be accommodated in the Röszke transit zone. They were accommodated together in a 13 sq. m container, with bunk beds without guard rails. According to the applicants, it was extremely hot and poorly ventilated in summer. The applicants received basic medical care including some hospital visits, but no psychiatric treatment. Owing to R.R.’s seeking asylum for a third time, he was not entitled to provision of food by the authorities, although the authorities stated that he had not been left starving and could have received food from NGOs or bought food

The Court found that R.R. had not had adequate access to food. As a repeat asylum-seeker, the Government had had in principle been allowed to decide to reduce or even withdraw material aid in respect of him. But such a decision should have contained reasons for the withdrawal or reduction and should have taken into account the principle of proportionality. The Court was not aware of such a decision. 

The Court noted that States were obliged to take into account the specific situation of minors and pregnant women. However, no individualised assessment of the applicants’ needs had been made in this case. Accordingly, in view of the applicant children’s young age, the applicant mother’s pregnancy and health situation and the length of the applicants’ stay in the conditions in the transit zone, the Court found that the situation complained of had subjected the applicant children and the applicant mother to treatment in breach of the Convention. There had therefore been a violation of Article 3 in respect of those applicants.

The Court ruled that the applicants’ stay in the transit zone amounted to a de facto deprivation of liberty and Article 5 § 1 was found to be applicable. The Court considered that without any formal decision of the authorities and solely by virtue of an overly broad interpretation of a general provision of the law, the applicants’ detention could not be considered to have been lawful. Accordingly, it concluded that in the present case there had been no strictly defined statutory basis for the applicants’ detention. There had thus been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. 

The Court also found that there had been only a de facto decision to keep the applicants in the zone and that it had not been established that the applicants could have sought a judicial review of their detention in the transit zone. The Court found that there had accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.

References from the official website of the European Court of Human Rights