The applicants, nationals of Iraq, are a mother and her minor child, requested asylum on 30 March 2017, entering the Tompa transit zone. In the transit zone, the applicants were placed in the sector for families, where they stayed until 26 July 2017, when they were placed in an open reception centre in Kiskunhalas.

Before the ECtHR, the applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions in the Tompa transit zone and under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 the Convention about the lack of an effective remedy to complain about those conditions. Under Article 5(1) and (4), the applicants complained about detention in the transit zone.

The ECtHR first noted the general principles regarding confinement and living conditions of asylum-applicants highlighted in its Grand Chamber judgment in Khlaifia and Others v Italy (No 16483/12, 15 December 2016). It also noted that it had analysed the confinement of minors in R.R. and Others v Hungary (No 36037/17, 2 March 2021).

Concerning the minor’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, the court considered that since the conditions in the Tompa transit zone were very similar to those in Röszke transit zone for which it had previously found violations, there was no reason to depart from this conclusion in the present case.

Concerning the complaints raised by the woman under Article 3 of the Convention, that she had not benefitted from adequate psychological care although she was considered to be at risk of suicide, the court noted that the government had not explained why she was not examined by a psychologist in a local hospital if there was no psychologist available in the transit zone. The court also added that the government did not provide records of medical consultations to prove that they were not aware of the medical issues raised by the applicant but she was provided with sedatives and was considered to be at risk of suicide. The court concluded that the authorities did not provide adequate medical care, in violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

Furthermore, the court found a violation of Article 5(1) and (4) of the Convention for the illegal detention in the transit zone.