The applicants, a family of five Afghan nationals, requested asylum on 20 February 2018. They were held in the Röszke transit zone at the Serbian-Hungarian border, in the sector for families, from 20 February to 31 May 2018. They were accommodated in a container of 13 square metres with a capacity of five persons, furnished with beds and lockers. They had access to the common areas, a gravel courtyard and a playroom container. They complained about the heat, the quality and insufficient quantity of the food, the children’s loss of weight and the family’s deteriorating mental health.

On 29 May 2018, the applicants were provided refugee protection.

On 31 May 2018, the family was transferred to the Vámosszabadi open reception centre.

Before the ECtHR, the applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his confinement the transit zone and under Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention about the lack of an effective remedy to complain about those conditions. Under Article 5(1) and (4), they complained about his detention in the transit zone.

With regard to the complaints raised by the children, 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). The court also referenced the judgment in R.R. and Others v Hungary (No 36037/17, 2 March 2021) in which it had assessed the general living conditions in one of the Hungarian transit zones and specifically the detention of minor applicants. Thus, the court considered that the treatment to which the children were subjected went beyond the threshold of Article 3 of the Convention, thus finding a violation of this provision.

Concerning the complaints raised by the parents, the court concluded that the severity threshold under Articles 3 of the Convention was not reached. The court noted that for a limited period of time, the living conditions in the Röszke transit zone were generally acceptable for asylum applicants in terms of accommodation, hygiene and access to food and medical care. The court added that there was psychological assistance provided in this case. Thus, concerning the parents, the court found no 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.