Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
ECHR rules on confinement in the transit zones in Hungary

Input Provided By
EUAA Courts and Tribunals Network
Other Source/Information:
ECHR Press Release
Referral to the CJEU
Original Documents
Relevant Legislative Provisions
European Convention on Human Rights; Revised Asylum Procedures Directive (Directive 2013/32/EU on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection) and/or APD 2005/85/CE; Revised Reception Conditions Directive (Directive 2013/33/EU laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection) and/or RCD 2003/9/CE;
Council of Europe, European Court of Human Rights [ECtHR], Ilias and Ahmed (Bangladesh) v Hungary, Application No. 47287/15 ECHR 150 (2018), ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0314JUD004728715, 14 March 2017. Link redirects to the English summary in the EUAA Case Law Database.
Permanent link to the case
Case history
Related cases:

According the Court's Press Release 

The case of Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary (application no. 47287/15) concerned the border-zone detention for 23 days of two Bangladeshi asylum-seekers as well as their removal from Hungary to Serbia.

In the Chamber judgment, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been: a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights because the applicants’ confinement in the Röszke border-zone had amounted to detention, meaning they had effectively been deprived of their liberty without any formal, reasoned decision and without appropriate judicial review; no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) as concerned the conditions of their detention in the transit zone, but a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) as concerned the lack of an effective remedy with which they could have complained about their conditions of detention; and, a violation of Article 3 on account of the applicants’ expulsion to Serbia insofar as they had not had the benefit of effective guarantees to protect them from exposure to a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment

The case was referred to the Grand Chamber. Read more here.

Country of Decision
Council of Europe
Court Name
CoE: European Court of Human Rights [ECtHR]
Case Number
Application No. 47287/15 ECHR 150 (2018)
Date of Decision
Country of Origin
Access to procedures
Detention/ Alternatives to Detention
Effective remedy
Safe Country concept/Safe Country of Origin/ Safe third country