The case concerned a mother and her three minor children and her adult child who sought asylum in Hungary after leaving Iran. Their asylum claims were rejected on 11 February 2019, and was followed by an expulsion order to Serbia, which was subsequently modified to Afghanistan when Serbia refused their readmission. Following a denied judicial review and inadequate food provisions in the Röszke transit zone, the family submitted a new asylum application on 16 May 2019, which was rejected on 8 October 2020.

When the transit zone closed on 21 May 2020, the applicants were transferred to an open facility and later settled in Vienna, Austria. Before the ECtHR, they complained under Articles 3, 5 and 8 ECHR regarding the detention conditions, food deprivation, prolonged confinement, and inadequate medical care for one child.

The court reiterated the standards set up in its previous case law with regard to confinement and living conditions for asylum applicants, and found that three of the applicants, children aged 17, 15 and 13, were subject to a significant violation of Article 3 of the ECHR due to their prolonged, seventeen-month confinement in the Röszke transit zone. For the first and second applicants, the court highlighted that they were denied food for a total of four days in the transit zone and rejected as insufficient the Government's claim that they could obtain food at their own expense. In view of the above, the court found a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR and stated that the authorities failed to have due regard to the state of dependency in which the applicants lived during this period.

Regarding Article 5 of the ECHR, based on its previous case law, the court reiterated that the applicants' confinement in the transit zone during their asylum proceedings constituted a de facto deprivation of liberty. In view of the excessive duration of the applicants' confinement, namely for seventeen months, the court found that it reached the threshold for being considered as a deprivation of liberty and concluded that there was a violation of Article 5.

In relation to the alien policing procedure, the court noted that the placement of the applicant in the transit zones under the Immigration Act's provisions lacked adequate safeguards against arbitrariness. Precisely, the court noted that the absence of formal detention decisions, the lack of limits on the duration of confinement, and insufficient judicial review mechanisms meant that the national law did not satisfy the "lawfulness" standard required by the ECHR. Consequently, the court found violations of Article 5(1) and (4) in both contexts.