Title CASE OF Z.A. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 61411/15, 61420/15, 61427/15 and 3028/16) (Grand Chamber)
Publisher Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights
Publication Date 21 November 2019
Country Iraq | State of Palestine | Russian Federation | Somalia | Syrian Arab Republic
Topics Airports | Arbitrary arrest and detention | Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Prison or detention conditions | Right to liberty and security | Transit
Citation / Document Symbol ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:1121JUD006141115
Other Languages / Attachments Press release
Related Document(s) Z.A. and others v. Russia  |  Submission by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in the case of Khasan Mohamad YASIEN v. Russia (Application no. 3028/16) before the European Court of Human Rights
Cite as CASE OF Z.A. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 61411/15, 61420/15, 61427/15 and 3028/16) (Grand Chamber), ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:1121JUD006141115, Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights, 21 November 2019, available at: https://www.refworld.org/cases,ECHR,5dd6bd437.html [accessed 18 May 2023]
Comments The Court found in particular that Article 5 was applicable to the applicants’ case as their presence in the transit zone had not been voluntary; they had been left to their own devices for the entire period of their stay, which had lasted between five and 19 months depending on the applicant; there had been no realistic prospect of them being able to leave the zone; and the authorities had not adhered to the domestic legislation on the reception of asylum-seekers. Given the absence of a legal basis for their being confined to the transit zone, a situation made worse by them being impeded in accessing the asylum system, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of the applicants’ rights protected by Article 5 § 1. The conditions the applicants had lived in had also been appalling: they had had to sleep in the transit zone, a busy and constantly lit area, with no access to washing or cooking facilities. There had thus also been a breach of Article 3 as their treatment had been degrading.
DisclaimerThis is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.