S.B. and others against Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is on May 21 and27. August 2024. year, and on September 19 of the same year announced the decision in the case S. B. and others. against Serbia, number 22463/17.
It's a decisionpassed unanimouslylo seven-member Council.
The case relates to the living conditions and freedom of movement of the applicants during their stay in the Reception Center in Preševo in the period from December 2016 to the end of May 2017. The applicants complained that the living conditions in the reception center did not provide a minimum of privacy, basic life needs, adequate nutrition and medical care. They also complained that they were deprived of their freedom because their freedom of movement was limited, since they had to ask permission from the administration of the reception center in order to leave it. Finally, they pointed out that they did not have at their disposal any legal remedy that would enable them to exercise their rights before the domestic authorities. |
THE CIRCUMSTANCES CASES
The applicants, a family of six refugees from Afghanistan, were in the Reception Center in Preševo from December 11, 2016 to May 30, 2017, when they were transferred to the Reception Center in Vranje.
As of an unknown date in 2018, the applicants have been living in Switzerland.
According to their claims, the conditions of stay in the Reception Center in Preševo were so bad that they can be considered torture and inhumane treatment. They stated that they were originally forced to stay in a tent, and then in a room with 200 people where blankets were used to partition off the space and ensure any privacy, that the food provided by the center was of poor quality, that they were not given medical care for various conditions (injuries sustained in Afghanistan, depression, problems with with an artificial plastic eye, etc.), and that they could not leave the reception center without prior approval from the administration.
The government disputed the allegations of the applicants, describing in detail the conditions at the Reception Center in Preševo. She stated, among other things, that the users of the reception center were never housed in tents, that adequate food and other necessities were provided in the reception center and that privacy in the group dormitories was ensured by means of plastic barriers provided by the reception center. Also, the Government pointed out that the center had a clinic that worked 24 hours a day with medical teams working in shifts (general practitioner and nurse), that the users were provided with medicines, and that the applicants, since they did not apply for asylum, they did not have the right to medical care outside of emergency medical care, noting that the health conditions they mentioned were not of an urgent nature. Finally, the Government disputed the allegations about the impossibility of leaving the reception center, stating that it was only necessary for the users of the reception center to inform the management of their departure, in order to keep up-to-date records of the number of available beds.
COMPLAINTS APPLICANTS AND THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT
The petitioners submitted the petition to the Court on February 8, 2017.
In the petition, they complained about the violation of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: the Convention) in connection with the conditions of stay in the Reception Center, about the violation of Article 5 of the Convention, considering that they were deprived of their liberty because leaving the reception center required the permission of the center management.
The court further required the parties to declare the possibilities of legal remedy available to the applicants in the domestic legal order, in accordance with Article 13 of the Convention.
THE DECISION THE COURT
Due to the lack of attached evidence of the injuries committed, as well as the general nature of the complaints presented by the applicants, the Court assessed that the application was clearly unfounded, and declared it inadmissible in accordance with Article 35, paragraph. 3. and 4. Conventions. Due to the aforementioned conclusion, the Court did not even examine the existence of an effective legal remedy, guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention.