T.S. AND M.S. v. GREECE

 
 
 
Communicated on 20 March 2019
 
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 15008/19
T.S. and M.S.
against Greece
lodged on 20 March 2019
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The two applicants are unaccompanied minor sisters from Afghanistan. The application concerns the applicants’ reception conditions, their placement in “protective detention”, as well as the procedure concerning the examination of their asylum application.
COMPLAINTS
1.  Invoking Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants complain:
(a)  that the domestic authorities have failed to provide them with sufficient protection, including an appropriate accommodation structure ;
(b)  that they were detained in very poor detention conditions and
(c)  that the domestic authorities have failed to appoint them a guardian.
 
2.  The applicants further complain that they were deprived of their liberty in violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention and that they did not have at their disposal an effective procedure by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
 
3.  Invoking Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants complain of the deficiencies in the asylum procedure.
 
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1.  Having regard to the applicants’ allegations:
(a)  that the domestic authorities failed to provide them with sufficient protection, including an appropriate accommodation structure, since January 2019 ;
(b)  that they were detained in very poor detention conditions, and that detention is in any event incompatible with their status and their vulnerability and
(c)  that the domestic authorities have failed to appoint a guardian and that the competent prosecutor, who acts as their temporary guardian, has consented to their placement in detention without undertaking further steps in their benefit,
 
have the applicants been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
 
2.  Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
 
3.  Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective procedure by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?
 
4.  In view of the applicants’ complaints concerning the deficiencies of the asylum procedure, has there been a breach of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention?
 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy