Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-685pp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-12T05:25:10.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary

European Court of Human Rights.  21 November 2019 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2025

Get access

Abstract

Aliens — Expulsion of aliens — States having right to expel aliens under international law — Applicants in transit zone seeking asylum in Hungary — Transit zone in Hungary on border with Serbia — Removal of applicants to Serbia — Removal of asylum seekers to third country without examination of asylum request on the merits — Duty of expelling State — Whether third country safe — Whether asylum procedures in third country adequate — Whether protecting against refoulement — Whether removal exposing asylum seekers to real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Duty of expelling State — Whether domestic remedies concerning expulsion ineffective — Whether conditions in transit zone amounting to inhuman or degrading treatment — Preliminary objections of respondent Government — Whether complaint concerning alleged lack of remedies outside six-month time limit — Objection to applicants’ victim status in relation to their removal to Serbia — Argument that respondent State acting in accordance with European Union law — Whether respondent State violating Article 3, Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3, and Article 5(1) and (4) of European Convention on Human Rights

Human rights — Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment — Asylum seekers in transit zone — Transit zone in Hungary on border with Serbia — Applicants seeking asylum in Hungary — Applicants staying in transit zone in Hungary while awaiting outcome of asylum requests — Removal of applicants to Serbia — Removal of asylum seekers to third country without examination of asylum request on the merits — Duty of expelling State — Whether third country safe — Whether asylum procedures in third country adequate — Whether protecting against refoulement — Whether removal imputable to respondent State — Whether exposing applicants to real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether conditions in transit zone amounting to inhuman or degrading treatment — Whether respondent State violating Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Human rights — Right to liberty — Applicants in transit zone seeking asylum in Hungary — Transit zone in Hungary on border with Serbia — Applicants staying in transit zone in Hungary while awaiting outcome of asylum requests — Whether applicants’ confinement in transit zone constituting a de facto deprivation of liberty — Whether confinement in violation of Article 5(1) and (4) of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether Article 5 applicable — Whether applicants deprived of their liberty within meaning of Article 5 — Applicants’ individual situation and choices — Purpose of domestic legal regime applicable to transit zone — Nature and degree of actual restriction imposed on or experienced by applicants — Admissibility of applicants’ complaints under Article 5(1) and (4) of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Damages — Non-pecuniary damage — Finding of procedural violation of Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 41 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Type
Case Report
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press & Assessment 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)