A pregnant woman from Cameroon arrived in Samos on 27 November 2019 and applied for international protection on 28 February 2020. She resided at the Samos Reception and Identification Centre. After lodging a request for interim measures with the ECtHR on 11 February 2020, she was moved to a guesthouse on the island of Samos, and subsequently transferred to an apartment on the mainland.

Before the ECtHR she complained under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention about the living conditions at the Samos Reception and Identification Centre.

UNHCR and Defence for Children International-Netherlands submitted third-party interventions on the reception conditions in the Samos Reception and Identification Centre.

The ECtHR found a violation of Article 3 in respect of the living conditions of the applicant at the Samos Reception and Identification Centre.

The ECtHR referred to its previous observations made in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece   concerning the difficulties encountered by States at the external borders of the European Union in coping with the increasing influx of migrants and asylum-seekers. However, it noted the absolute character of the rights secured by Article 3 and the state obligations under that provision.

The ECtHR also noted the general principles concerning the living conditions of asylum‑seekers, which have already been summarised in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, Khlaifia and Others, and R.R. and Others v. Hungary. It further noted the general principles concerning the living conditions for pregnant women in Mahmundi and Others v. Greece, R.R. and Others and A.D. v. Greece.

Specifically for the applicant’s case, it noted that she resided at the Samos Reception and Identification Centre from 27 November 2019 to 20 March 2020, approximately four months in an advanced stage of her pregnancy and in need of specialised care.

The court further noted that the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights had characterised the situation in Samos as “a struggle for survival” and requested practical measures with immediate impact. The court further took into account the findings of the Greek National Commission for Human Rights, after a monitoring visit in Samos, and the UNHCR’s third-party observations on overcrowding, inadequate shelter, medical support and sanitation.

Based on this evidence, the court found that the applicant was subjected to ill-treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention.