12 Sep Confinement of the family in the Röszke transit zone is not in accordance with the Convention

In the case W.O. and others v. Hungary (application no. 36896/18, 25.08.2022) the Court concluded that there has been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture) and of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 (the right to liberty and security of person) of the Europen Convention on Human Rights.

The case concerns the confinement of the applicant family in the Hungarian transit zone. The first and second applicants are the mother and father, respectively, and the third and fourth applicants are their children, who were three and one year old at the time of the events in question. The family stayed at the Röszke transit zone at the border of Hungary and Serbia between 23 April and 19 November 2018, except for certain time they spent in the deportation department. They were housed in one container with a separate bed and a wardrobe for each one of them.  In addition to describing the general conditions, the applicants submitted that the first and third applicants had suffered from medical problems related to, inter alia, their past domestic abuse and distress due to their living condition. They repeatedly requested to be moved to an open reception facility and provided appropriate assistance. The first applicant met with a psychologist on fifteen occasions; however, the assistance was allegedly inadequate and conducted in a language she did not understand. 

The Court noted that in the case of R.R. and Others (no. 36037/17, 02.04.2021), which is similar to the present one, the Court found a violation of this provision on account of the conditions to which the applicant children and mother had been subjected during their almost four-months-long stay in the Röszke transit zone.

As regards the applicant children, who were one and three years old at the relevant time, the Court considered that given the conditions and constrains inherent during the confinement, the length of their stay in the Röszke transit zone must have caused them psychological suffering and had harmful consequences for their well-being 

As regards the adult applicants, the Court noted that they, together with their children, stayed in the transit zone over the entire summer of 2018. Given the size of the container, the lack of proper ventilation and the limited outdoor space, which was moreover exposed to sun, the Court accepted that the heat during the summer aggravated their situation and is thus relevant for the assessment under Article. Court further found that the first applicant was particularly vulnerable. In view of that, the Court considered that the conditions of confinement, the related constraints and insecurity must have caused the first applicant significant psychological suffering, of which the authorities must have been aware. It moreover noted that she had been exposed to these conditions for almost seven months.

With regards the second applicant, the Court, on 2 November 2018, decided to indicate to the Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, to provide him with food during his stay in the deportation section. It has not been disputed by the parties that the authorities provided him with no food while being held there. While there appear to be some ambiguity as regards the duration of the applicants’ stay in the deportation section, the Court having regard to the detailed account provided by the applicants, which was not refuted by any evidence from the Government, found it established that they were held there between 31 October and 5 November 2018. It considered that the authorities failed to have due regard to the state of dependency in which the second applicant lived during this period. Having regard to all the above considerations, the Court considers that the situation complained of subjected the applicants to treatment which exceeded the threshold of severity required to engage Article 3 of the Convention. There has therefore been a violation of that provision.

The applicants’ complaint that they had been confined to the transit zone in violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention is similar to the one examined in the case R.R. and Others, where the Court found that the applicants’ stay for almost four months in the transit zone amounted to a de facto deprivation of liberty. The Court concluded that the applicants complaints disclose a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention in the light of its findings in R.R. and Others.

Reference from the official website oft he European Court of Human Rights