Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  M.B.K AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Prevent unauthorised entry into ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  M.B.K AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 39472/07

  POPOV c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.02.2022 - 73860/17

  The Court has examined a similar issue in Muskhadzhiyeva and Others v. Belgium (no. 41442/07, § 66, 19 January 2010) and Popov v. France (nos. 39472/07 and 39474/07, § 105, 19 January 2012).
• EGMR, 02.03.2021 - 36037/17

  R.R. AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.02.2022 - 73860/17

  The general conditions and services provided in the Röszke transit zone are described in R.R. and Others v. Hungary (no. 36037/17, §§ 10-12, 14-17 and 30-31, 2 March 2021).

• EGMR, 02.06.2022 - 38967/17

  H.M. AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  As regards the applicant children, the present case is similar to that of R.R. and Others (cited above), where the Court, emphasising the primary significance of the passage of time for the application of Article 3 in situations such as the present one, found a violation of this provision on account of the conditions to which the applicant children were subjected during their almost four-months-long stay in the Röszke transit zone (see R.R. and Others, cited above, §§ 58-60 and 63-65, and compare M.B.K. and Others v. Hungary [Committee], no. 73860/17, § 6, 24 February 2022).

  The Court does not therefore find it substantiated that the otherwise acceptable general conditions in the transit zone were particularly ill-suited in the first applicant's circumstances (see Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary [GC], no. 47287/15, §§ 186-94, 21 November 2019, and, regarding comparable circumstances, M.B.K. and Others v. Hungary [Committee], no. 73860/17, § 8, 24 February 2022).

• EGMR, 30.11.2023 - 17089/19

  S.AB. AND S.AR. v. HUNGARY

  In that case the Court, emphasising the primary significance of the passage of time for the application of Article 3 in situations such as the present one, found a violation of this provision on account of the conditions to which the applicants children were subjected during their almost four-months-long stay in the Röszke transit zone (see R.R. and Others, cited above, §§ 58-60 and 63-65, compare M.B.K. and Others v. Hungary [Committee], no. 73860/17, § 6, 24 February 2022 and W.O. and Others v. Hungary [Committee], no. 36896/18, §§ 9-10, 25 August 2022).
• EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 53272/17

  P.S. AND A.M. v. HUNGARY

  Having regard to the evidence before it and to the fact that the conditions in Röszke transit zone and Tompa transit zone were very similar (H.M. and Others v. Hungary, no. 38967/17, § 17, 2 June 2022), the Court sees no reasons to find otherwise in the present case in which the second applicant stayed in the Tompa transit zone for four months (compare M.B.K. and Others v. Hungary [Committee], no. 73860/17, § 6, 24 February 2022 and A.A.A. and Others v. Hungary [Committee], no. 37327/17 § 7, 9 June 2022).
• EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 58680/18

  M.A. AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  Even though the adult applicants in the present case stayed in the transit zone for over three months, the evidence in the case file does not show that the otherwise acceptable conditions in the transit zone were particularity ill-suited in their circumstances (compare M.B.K. and Others v. Hungary [Committee], no. 73860/17, § 8, 24 February 2022 and A.A.A. and Others v. Hungary, cited above, § 9).
• EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 37327/17

  A.A.A. AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  As regards the applicant children, the present case is similar to that of R.R. and Others where the Court, emphasising the primary significance of the passage of time for the application of Article 3 in situations such as the present one, found a violation of this provision on account of the conditions to which the applicants children were subjected during their almost four-months-long stay in the Röszke transit zone (see R.R. and Others, cited above, §§ 58-60 and 63-65, compare M.B.K. and Others v. Hungary [Committee], no. 73860/17, § 6, 24 February 2022).