An Iranian applicant entered the Tompa transit zone at the Serbian-Hungarian border on 18 January 2018 and requested asylum in Hungary. Her application was rejected on 14 March 2018 and she lodged an appeal against this decision. On 21 January 2019 the administrative and labour court suspended the examination of her appeal and it submitted a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

The applicant was accommodated in the transit zone, initially with her brothers, in a container of 13 sqm with beds and lockers. She complained that there was noise, heat, prolonged isolation and that her mental health deteriorated. She also complained that she was subjected to verbal harassment from male asylum-seekers, and that after the release of her brothers from the transit zone on 7 and 19 February 2019, she felt unprotected, isolated and had suicidal thoughts. From 19 February 2019, she was placed in a container alone and under surveillance 24 hours a day, with police officers entering the container, shouting at her to leave the lights on and the door open. She was released to the Balassagyarmat community shelter on 4 March 2019 after her representative requested her release to the court.

Under Article 3 of the European Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13, the applicant  complained about the allegedly inhuman or degrading conditions in which she had been held in the transit zone and the lack of an effective remedy to challenge these conditions.

Under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the European Convention, the applicant complained about her thirteen‑month confinement to the transit zone.

Regarding the complaint under Article 3, the court noted that the applicant was placed in the health care sector, essentially an isolation sector, as the Government argued, because she had threatened to commit suicide. The court further noted that although she was isolated due to a risk of suicide, she was not consulted by a psychiatrist in a local hospital and no record of medical consultations was provided. The court noted that in R.R. and Others, it had already found that the living conditions in the isolation sector had been more restrictive than in the family sector. In addition, although the isolation of the applicant mitigated the risk of harassment and abuse, it deteriorated the applicant's mental health as she was not provided with the adequate medical care. Thus, the court concluded that the authorities violated Article 3 of the European Convention as they did not provide the appropriate mental health care to the applicant.

Under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the European Convention, the court noted that the confinement to the transit zone is essentially similar to the one examine in R.R. and Others, where the court found that the applicants' stay of almost four months in the transit zone amounted to a de facto deprivation of liberty, and the same conclusion was warranted in this case. It thus found a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the European Convention.

Finally, the court did not consider it necessary to examine the remaining complaints under Article 13 of the European Convention.