According to the ECtHR's press release:

"The case concerned the death of a six-year-old Afghan child, MAD.H., who was hit by a train after allegedly having been denied the opportunity to seek asylum by the Croatian authorities and ordered to return to Serbia via the tracks. It also concerned, in particular, the applicants’ detention while seeking international protection. [...] Relying on Article 2 (right to life), the applicants complained that the State had been responsible for the death of their daughter and sister MAD.H., and that the investigation into her death had been ineffective. They complained that their placement in the Tovarnik centre had been in breach of Articles 3 (prohibition on inhuman and degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life). Under Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention (prohibition of collective expulsions of aliens), they complained that they had been subject to summary removals from Croatia to Serbia. Under Article 34 (right of individual petition), they complained of the authorities’ failure to comply with a Rule 39 decision of the Court, and hindrance of the effective exercise of their right of individual application. They also complained of discrimination under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken in conjunction with Articles 3, 5 and 8 and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 (general prohibition on discrimination).

Article 2

The Court noted, in particular, that the investigating authorities had failed to look into the discrepancies between the police officers’ statements and had never verified their allegation that there had been no recordings of the impugned events. Proposals by the applicants and the Croatian 4 Ombudswoman to establish contacts between the applicants and the police by inspecting the signals from their mobile telephones and the police car GPS had been ignored, and the statement by the Serbian authorities that the applicants had been forced back into Serbia had not been addressed. Lastly, the authorities had refused to provide the applicants’ lawyer with information regarding the investigation and the applicants had been allowed to meet her only belatedly. The Court concluded that the investigation into MAD.H.’s death had been ineffective, leading to a violation of the procedural limb of Article 2.

Article 3

The Court found that the material conditions in the Tovarnik centre had been satisfactory and that the applicants had been provided with medical and psychological assistance. However, some aspects did resemble a prison, such as the presence of police officers, barriers in the hallways and bars on the windows. The Court took note of the comments made by the Croatian Ombudswoman and the Croatian Children’s Ombudswoman regarding, in particular, the inadequacy of the centre for housing children. It also noted the fact that the children had been in a particularly vulnerable condition, as most of them had witnessed the death of their sister near the border. Furthermore, the children had spent almost two months without any organised activities to occupy their time. As their detention had lasted for a protracted period, namely two months and fourteen days, caused by the domestic authorities’ failure to act with the required expedition, it must have been perceived by the applicant children as a never-ending situation, and could thus be sufficiently severe to engage Article 3 of the Convention. The Court thus found a violation of this Article in respect of the applicant children. Regarding the adults, the Court was mindful of the fact that they had been mourning the death of their daughter, but noted that the authorities had provided them with psychological support. They had not been separated from their children and had been aware of the progress of their asylum case. The Court was unable to conclude that the otherwise acceptable conditions at the Tovarnik centre for adult applicants were particularly ill-suited to their individual circumstances and found that there had been no violation of their rights under this Article.

Article 5

The Court had serious doubts as to whether the authorities had carried out an assessment as to whether, in view of the number of children involved, a less coercive alternative measure to detention had been possible. It further questioned whether the authorities had acted in good faith, given that they had detained the applicants on 21 March 2018 for the purpose of verifying their identities, but had started checking their identity only on 10 April 2018, after an inquiry by the Croatian Ombudswoman. By then, the applicants’ application for international protection had already been dismissed by the Ministry of the Interior ten days before. The Court further criticised the protracted length of the proceedings before the Administrative Courts concerning the applicants’ asylum application and review of the lawfulness of their detention, during which time the applicants had languished in detention. The Court questioned the diligence of the authorities in this case and found that they had failed to take all the necessary steps to limit, as far as possible, the detention of the applicant family. The detention of the applicants had therefore not been compliant with this Article, resulting in a violation.

Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention

The Court considered it to be truthful that on 21 November 2017 the Croatian police officers had returned the first applicant and her children to Serbia without considering their individual situation. The Government argued that the applicants had engaged in “culpable conduct” by circumventing the legal procedures that existed for entry into Croatia. However, the Court was unable to establish, on the basis of the information before it, whether at the material time the respondent State had provided the applicants with genuine and effective access to procedures for legal entry into Croatia, in particular with a view to claiming protection under Article 3. It thus held that the removal to Serbia of the first applicant and her children on 21 November 2017 was of a collective nature, in breach of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.

Article 34

The Court took note of, in particular, the denial of contact with the applicants’ lawyer, even after a Rule 39 request in that connection, and the undue criminal-law pressure put on the lawyer over the power of attorney, despite the applicants’ confirmation of that agreement before the courts. The Court concluded that the evidence before it was sufficient to deduce that the restriction of contact between the applicants and their lawyer and the criminal investigation and pressure to which that lawyer was subjected were aimed at discouraging them from taking their case to Strasbourg. There had been a violation of the applicants’ right of individual petition."