Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment in the case of F.S. and A.S. v. Hungary:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The case concerned two Afghan brothers who sought asylum in Hungary after losing their parents. The Court found that Hungary violated Article 3 of the Convention regarding inhuman and degrading treatment for the younger brother due to the conditions in the Röszke transit zone, where they were held for six months. Additionally, the Court ruled that Hungary violated Article 5 §§ 1 and 4, concerning the right to liberty and security, for both applicants due to their detention in the transit zone. The Court rejected complaints regarding the age assessment procedure and found no need to examine further complaints about the conditions of detention.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter of the Case:** Details the applicants’ journey to Hungary, their asylum application, the age assessment process, and the conditions of their stay in the Röszke transit zone.
* **The Court’s Assessment:**
* **Article 3 Violation:** The Court examined whether the conditions in the transit zone amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment. It distinguished between the two applicants, finding a violation for the younger brother due to his age and the length of stay, but not for the older brother, considering the psychiatric support he received.
* **Article 5 Violation:** The Court assessed whether the applicants’ confinement in the transit zone constituted a deprivation of liberty. It concluded that it did, thus violating their rights under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4.
* **Other Complaints:** The Court addressed complaints about the age assessment procedure, deeming them inadmissible due to the application being lodged out of time. It found no need to examine further complaints regarding detention conditions, as the main legal questions had already been addressed.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court awarded EUR 3,000 to the first applicant and EUR 4,000 to the second applicant for non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 1,500 jointly for costs and expenses.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Violation of Article 3 for the younger applicant:** The Court emphasized the vulnerability of the younger applicant and the impact of the extended stay in the transit zone on his well-being.
* **Violation of Article 5 for both applicants:** The Court reiterated that confinement in the transit zone amounted to a deprivation of liberty, infringing on their rights under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4.
* **Inadmissibility of age assessment complaints:** The Court highlighted the importance of lodging applications within six months of the events in question, especially concerning the lack of effective remedy.
**** This decision may have implications for Ukrainian asylum seekers or refugees who have experienced similar conditions or procedures in Hungary or other countries. It reinforces the importance of providing adequate living conditions and respecting the right to liberty and security, especially for vulnerable individuals such as minors.
