According the Court's Press release, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

• no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights;
• no violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security); and
• a violation of Article 5 § 4 (right to a speedy decision on the lawfulness of detention).

The case concerned the conditions of detention of Syrian, Afghan and Palestinian nationals in the
“hotspots” of Vial and Souda (Greece), and the lawfulness of their detention in those camps.
The Court considered that the authorities had done all that could reasonably be expected of them in
the Vial camp to meet the obligation to provide care and protection to unaccompanied minors. The
other applicants had been transferred immediately – or within ten days – from the Vial camp to the
Souda camp. The Court also held that the conditions of detention in the Souda camp did not amount
to inhuman or degrading treatment.
The Court reiterated its previous finding that a period of one month’s detention in the Vial camp
should not be considered excessive, given the time needed to comply with the relevant
administrative formalities. In addition, the length of the applicants’ detention once they had
expressed their wish to apply for asylum had been relatively short.
In contrast, the applicants, who did not have legal assistance, had not been able to understand the
content of the information brochure; in particular, they were unable to understand the material
relating to the various appeal possibilities available under domestic law.