FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF S.H. v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 47321/19)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
20 June 2024
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of S.H. v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,
 Lado Chanturia,
 Kateřina Šimáčková, judges,
and Sophie Piquet, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 47321/19) against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 4 September 2019 by an Iranian national, S.H., born in 1991 and living in Ehrenberg, Germany (“the applicant”) who was represented by Mr Sz.M. Sánta, a lawyer practising in Budapest;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Z. Tallódi, of the Ministry of Justice;
the decision not to have the applicant’s name disclosed;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 30 May 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The applicant, fleeing Iran with her brothers on account of their involvement in the Arab minority movement, entered the Tompa transit zone at the Serbian-Hungarian border on 18 January 2018 to seek asylum. 2. Her asylum application was rejected on 14 March 2018. She sought judicial review of the decision. On 21 January 2019 the administrative and labour court suspended the examination of her case as it submitted a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). 3. While in the transit zone, the applicant was initially staying with her two brothers. They were accommodated in the family sector, sharing a container of 13 square metres, furnished with beds and lockers. Besides the general material conditions, she complained about noise, heat, prolonged isolation and the alleged deterioration of her mental health. She submitted that she was subjected to verbal harassment from male asylum-seekers, and following the release of her brothers from the transit zone on 7 and 19 February 2019, she felt unprotected, isolated and had suicidal thoughts. 4. On 19 February 2019, after her brothers’ departure, she was transferred to the health care sector, which was normally used for the isolation of people with contagious diseases. She was alone there in a container and was kept under surveillance 24 hours a day. According to her, at around 11.00 p.m. during her first night there, several police officers entered the container, shouting, switching the lights on and instructing her to keep them turned on. The door of the container had to remain open as well. 5. Protesting against the separation from her brothers, the conditions and the excessive length of her detention, the applicant went on a hunger strike. A psychologist visited her, but according to the applicant, she “was provided no treatment, only advised her to eat” and to accept the rules. 6. On 15 February 2019 her legal representative submitted an urgent request to the Immigration and Asylum Office (“the IAO”), asking for her immediate transfer to an open reception centre, referring to her harassment and the risk of further abuse and self-harm. 7. On 25 February 2019 the applicant’s legal representative sought an interim measure from the administrative and labour court, requesting her release from the transit zone. On 26 February 2019 the court granted her request, ordering the IAO to provide the applicant, without delay, with accommodation outside the transit zone. The court referred to Article 43(2) of the Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection and section 71/A (4) of Act no. LXXX of 2007 on Asylum, on the basis of which asylum-seekers may only stay in a transit zone for four weeks. As this period had clearly expired in the applicant’s case, the court concluded that she was unlawfully required by the authorities to remain in the Tompa transit zone. 8. The applicant was released to the Balassagyarmat community shelter on 4 March 2019. Two days later she left for an unknown destination. She currently resides in Germany. 9. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13, she 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 in this respect. She also complained about her thirteen‑month confinement to the transit zone under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

Outcome for Article 3: violation