The case concerned the living conditions and medical assistance in the reception and identification centres (RIC) for applicants who arrived on Greek islands in 2019. The court found breaches of Article 3 of the ECHR and reaffirmed the general principles concerning the living conditions of applicants as established in its judgments in M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece (Case 30696/09, 21 January 2011) and Khlaifia and Others v Italy (Case 16483/12, 15 Decembre 2016).

For the applicant in case A.R. v. Greece, no. 59841/19, the court ruled a violation of her rights under Article 3 of the ECHR concerning her living conditions in Kos Pyli RIC, during the relevant period, citing her homelessness and lack of basic living arrangements, to which the Greek authorities did not take action. For the applicant in case M.A. v. Greece, no. 15782/20, the court found a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR due to the inadequate living conditions caused by overcrowding in Chios Vial RIC during the relevant period. Regarding the applicant in case W.A. v. Greece, no. 21997/20, the court found a breach of Article 3 of the ECHR due to dire living conditions characterized by severe overcrowding, inadequate medical and sanitary facilities, insufficient food supply, lack of security, and high crime rates in Samos RIC during the relevant period.

Moreover, the applicant in the case W.A. v. Greece, no. 21997/20, alleged a breach of Article 3 of the ECHR due to inadequate medical care in Samos RIC. The court observed that despite the applicant's known diagnosis of hepatitis B and multiple symptoms, significant medical attention was delayed, and he was only transferred to the mainland for specialised care after over ten months. The court found that this prolonged lack of proper treatment for a known serious medical condition constituted a violation of his rights under Article 3 of the ECHR.

Furthermore, the applicant in the case A.R. v. Greece, no. 59841/19, raised a complaint under Article 5 § 2, alleging that she was not informed in a language she understood about the reasons for her detention. The Court observed analogous circumstances in its judgment in J.R. and Others v. Greece (Case 22696/16, 25 January 2018) where a breach of Article 5 § 2 had been found. Accordingly, the court reached the same conclusion in the present case.

Additionally, the applicant in the case A.R. v. Greece, no. 59841/19, also complained under Article 3 regarding the conditions at police stations in Symi and Kos, the living conditions at a pre-removal detention centre in Kos, and the lack of medical assistance. She also alleged violations of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 regarding the lawfulness of her detention and the absence of judicial review. Moreover, the applicant in M.A. v. Greece, no. 15782/20, complained about inadequate medical assistance at Chios Vial RIC and his living conditions in independent housing. The court dismissed these complaints for failing to meet admissibility criteria or demonstrate potential violations of ECHR rights. The court also specified that the interim measures indicated to the Government under Rule 39 in cases M.A. v. Greece, no. 15782/20 and W.A. v. Greece, no. 21997/20, were no longer applicable.