The applicant, a Syrian national, requested asylum on 19 July 2018, entering the Tompa transit zone at the Serbian-Hungarian border. In the transit zone, the applicant was placed in the sector for single men., then transferred to the alien policing or expulsion sector (without food) and finally in the sector for asylum seekers.

The Office for Immigration and Asylum (IAO) rejected his request on 9 August 2018 as inadmissible, which he challenged.

Before the Budapest Administrative and Labour Court, the applicant requested on 12 March 2019 to be placed in accommodation outside the transit zone, complaining about the living conditions, the length of his detention (8 months) and the deterioration of his mental health.

On 3 April 2019, the court instructed the IAO to immediately provide the applicant with accommodation outside the transit zone and held that the detention in the transit zone was unlawful. The applicant was transferred on 5 April 2019 to an open reception centre, where he was accommodated in a container of container of 13 square metres shared with other people. The applicant complained about the general material conditions, the heat, prolonged isolation, the inadequate medical and psychological assistance, and the deterioration of his mental health.

The applicant left the centre on 22 April 2019.

Before the ECtHR, the applicant complained  under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his confinement in the Tompa 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), the applicant complained about his 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).

The court also referenced the Grand Chamber judgment in Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary (No 47287/15, 21 November 2019), 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 lack of food provided to the applicants.

On the applicant’s case, the court noted that he was not provided food for six days while he was held in the expulsion section of the Tompa transit zone, which exceeded the threshold of severity under Article 3 of the Convention. The court considered that there was no need to examine the rest of the complaints raised under Articles 3 and 13 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.