This judgment, *A.M. and Others v. Greece* (24 September 2026), concerns the systemic failure of the Greek state to provide adequate reception and living conditions for asylum-seekers, as well as failures to provide necessary medical care to vulnerable individuals. The Court joined four separate applications due to their shared subject matter regarding the treatment of asylum-seekers in various facilities, including the Moria Reception and Identification Centre. While the Court rejected some claims due to a lack of substantiation or failure to meet the six-month time limit, it found clear violations of Article 3 of the Convention in the majority of cases. The judgment highlights that asylum-seekers are a particularly vulnerable group, and the state bears a positive obligation to ensure their living conditions remain compatible with human dignity. Ultimately, the Court ordered the respondent State to pay non-pecuniary damages to the applicants, reinforcing the standard of care required for those seeking international protection. ****: This decision is highly relevant to the current European context, particularly for Ukraine, as it reaffirms the strict obligations of host states toward displaced persons and vulnerable populations, setting a clear precedent for the standard of medical and living conditions that must be maintained for those fleeing conflict or persecution.<\/p>\n
### Structure and Provisions
\nThe judgment is structured into four main sections:
\n1. **Procedural History and Joinder:** The Court consolidated four applications (nos. 11022\/17, 18179\/20, 48822\/20, and 1880\/21) into a single proceeding to ensure procedural efficiency.
\n2. **Admissibility:** The Court addressed the Government\u2019s preliminary objections regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the “victim status” of the applicants. It dismissed these objections, noting that the Government failed to demonstrate the existence of effective domestic remedies for these specific grievances.
\n3. **Merits (Article 3):** The Court examined the living conditions in Ritsona and Moria camps. It distinguished between claims that were insufficiently supported by evidence (which were rejected) and those where the conditions clearly fell below the minimum threshold of severity.
\n4. **Just Satisfaction (Article 41):** The Court awarded non-pecuniary damages to the applicants based on established case-law but rejected claims for legal costs and expenses due to a lack of documentary evidence proving that such costs were actually incurred.<\/p>\n
### Key Provisions for Legal Use
\n* **Burden of Proof:** The Court clarified that applicants must provide “concrete and detailed information” regarding their personal situation and the duration of the alleged shortcomings. Failure to do so results in the application being declared manifestly ill-founded.
\n* **Effectiveness of Domestic Remedies:** The judgment reinforces that it is the Government\u2019s burden to prove that a domestic remedy is not only available in theory but also effective in practice (accessible, capable of providing redress, and offering reasonable prospects of success). General administrative procedures that do not specifically address the failure to provide adequate reception conditions are insufficient.
\n* **Vulnerability and Medical Care:** The Court established that for vulnerable individuals (such as torture victims or those with chronic illnesses like HIV), the failure to provide timely, specialized, and trauma-informed care constitutes a violation of Article 3. Administrative delays in initiating essential treatments\u2014such as antiretroviral therapy\u2014cannot be excused as mere “administrative inconvenience.”
\n* **Interim Measures:** The Court\u2019s reliance on its own previously indicated interim measures (under Rule 39) serves as a critical indicator of the state’s failure to comply with its obligations, which the Court then uses to substantiate findings of a violation on the merits.<\/p>\n