The applicant, a Pakistani national, fourteen years old and unaccompanied, crossed the border into Hungary on 21 June 2017, hid in a barn where he was apprehended and allegedly assaulted by members of the “field guards”, he was apprehended by police officers, taken to the border with Serbia and made to walk in the direction of Serbia. He alleged that he was not provided with the opportunity to claim asylum. In Serbia he was examined on the same day in a hospital and two days later by Médecins Sans Frontières which confirmed that he was wounded to his head.
A criminal complaint for ill-treatment was lodged with the Hungarian prosecution on 28 July 2017 by the applicant’s legal representative.
Before the ECtHR, the applicant complained that was subjected to a collective expulsion, in breach of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention. He further complained under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 about the lack of an effective remedy.
The court ruled that that the removal of the applicant amounted to an expulsion within the meaning of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4. It observed that the government did not dispute that the authorities removed the applicant from Hungary on 21 June 2017. The court further noted its similar findings in the judgment Shahzad v Hungary (No 12625/17, 8 July 2021, § 17) and the similarities between the two cases. In the present case, the court observed that the removal of the applicant was collective in nature as it was carried out without any decision or examination of his individual situation, he had no realistic chance of entering the transit zone and applying for asylum there, and the procedure for legal entry available to him had not been effective. The court also highlighted that the applicant was an unaccompanied minor, in a situation of extreme vulnerability, a factor which should take precedence over considerations relating to the status of irregular migrant. Thus, the court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4.
With regard to the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 4 of Protocol No. 4, the court concluded that there was a violation with regard to these provisions as well.