Verurteilung Griechenlands wegen der Aufnahmebedingungen von unbegleiteten minderjährigen Flüchtlingen:
1. Es stellt eine Verletzung von Art. 3 EMRK (Verbot der Folter) dar, wenn unbegleitete minderjährige Flüchtlinge monatelang auf die Registrierung als Asylsuchende warten müssen und in dieser Zeit nicht altersentsprechend untergebracht und versorgt werden. Den Minderjährigen wurde keine Informationen über ihre Rechte in einer Sprache, die sie verstehen, zur Verfügung gestellt, keine gesetzliche Vormundschaft benannt. Die vorläufige Unterbringung in einer Unterkunft für unbegleitete minderjährige Flüchtlinge entsprach nicht den Anforderungen an eine altersgerechte Unterbringung. Es waren keine Bildungs- oder Freizeitangebote vorhanden, keine psychologische Unterstützung oder Unterstützung durch Betreuer*innen.
2. Es stellt eine Verletzung von Art. 5 EMRK (Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit) dar, wenn unbegleitete minderjährige Flüchtlinge in polizeiliche Schutzhaft genommen werden und ihnen weder der Grund oder die Dauer der Inhaftierung mitgeteilt wird, noch Ihnen eine rechtliche Vertretung zur Seite gestellt wird.
(Leitsätze der Redaktion)
[...]
1. The case mainly concerns the conditions of reception and detention of the applicants, who, at the time of lodging their applications with the Court, had been unaccompanied immigrant minors in Greece. [...]
5. The applicants in application nos. 51980/19, 56843/19, 61303/19 and 15463/20 alleged that the reception conditions upon their arrival to Greece (identification and age assessment procedures, access to information and asylum procedures, educational opportunities and appointment of a guardian) had not been compatible with their status as vulnerable persons, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
6. All applicants also complained that their detention in police stations whether in protective custody or administrative detention and in pre-removal detention centres (“PDCs”) had been in inhuman and degrading conditions.
7. The applicants in application no. 15463/20 complained that their living conditions in the Malakasa camp had not been compatible with Article 3. [...]
15. In so far as the reception conditions of the applicants are concerned, the Court notes that (i) some applicants were registered as unaccompanied minors with delays between one and three months (see application nos. 51980/19 (applicants nos. 1, 10 and 11); 56843/19 and 61303/19); (ii) their dates of birth were recorded incorrectly by the Greek authorities (application nos. 51980/19 (applicants nos. 2, 7, 12, 17 and 18) and 56843/19) or (iii) access to asylum procedure had not been available to them (see application nos. 51980/19 (applicants nos.1, 5, 10 and 11) and 15463/20). No evidence had been submitted by the Government confirming that the applicants in these cases had been provided with effective access to information about their rights and interpretation services which would enable them to communicate appropriately information about their age and personal situations or timely request asylum. The Court considers that the delays in placing the applicants in shelters for unaccompanied minors were caused by the shortcomings in the procedures for the registration and age assessment of asylum-seekers which cannot be attributed to the applicants as persons in situation of an extreme vulnerability. In other cases, even though the applicants were promptly registered as unaccompanied minors and had been placed in temporary accommodation, those facilities appear to have systematically lacked educational and recreational activities, psychological support and general support from the staff, which further exacerbated the applicants’ feeling of vulnerability and uncertainty for their future, exposed them to physical and sexual violence and, eventually, in some cases - to homelessness (see application no. 51980/19 (applicants nos. 1-9, 13-20) and 15463/20). For none of the applicants concerned had a permanent legal guardian been appointed who could closely monitor their situation and to whom they could turn for guidance. The applicants therefore remained in a precarious situation for an extended period of time having been left to look after themselves in a foreign country and to seek help from strangers, NGOs and, eventually, from the Court, despite their young age and the particular state of insecurity and vulnerability in which, as has been established by the Court, asylum-seekers have been known to live in Greece (see M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, cited above, § 259, Rahimi, cited above, §§ 87-94; O.R. v. Greece, no. 24650/19, §§ 67-69, 23 January 2024).
16. As regards the conditions of detention of applicants in “protective custody” and PDCs, taking into account the Court’s well-established case-law on the matter, detailed information submitted by the applicants, their vulnerability and the duration of their detention and considering that the Government have not put forward any argument capable of persuading the Court to reach a different conclusion in the present case, the Court concludes that the applicants were detained in conditions incompatible with the Convention standards (see Sh.D. and Others v. Greece, Austria, Croatia, Hungary, North Macedonia, Serbia and Slovenia, no. 14165/16, §§ 48-51, 13 June 2019; H.A. and Others v. Greece, no. 19951/16, §§ 166-169, 28 February 2019; S.Z. v. Greece, no. 66702/13, §§ 36-42, 21 June 2018; Amadou v. Greece, no. 37991/11, §§ 49-53, 4 February 2016; Al. K. v. Greece, no. 63542/11, §§ 53-55, 11 December 2014; Ahmade v. Greece, no. 50520/09, §§ 91-104, 25 September 2012 and Popov, cited above, §§ 91-103).
17. Accordingly, having regard to the parties’ submissions, all the material in its possession and its case-law, the Court dismisses the remaining objections of the Government as to the admissibility of this complaint and finds that the treatment to which the applicants were subjected was in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
2. The living conditions of applicants in the Malakasa camp (application no. 15463/20)
18. Applicants R.H. and R.A. in application no. 15463/20 complained that their living conditions in the Malakasa camp had not been compatible with Article 3 whereas the Government disputed their submissions.
19. Having regard to the detailed information submitted by R.H. and R.A., and to the fact that the Government have failed to duly refute their submissions, and given its own findings in the case of O.R. v. Greece, cited camp, the Court concludes that applicants R.H. and R.A. were detained in cramped and inadequate conditions inappropriate for their age. The Court therefore considers that these applicants were subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION UNDER THE WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
20. The applicants also raised other complaints which are covered by the well-established case-law of the Court. In particular, they alleged, under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention, that they had not been informed of the reasons for their detention and that they had not had access to effective judicial review of reasons for their continued detention. These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other grounds. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it and considering the fact that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading the Court to reach a different conclusion in the present case, the Court concludes that they disclose a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention in the light of its findings in the following judgments (see Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v. Belgium, no. 13178/03, §§ 102-103, ECHR 2006-XI and Rahimi, cited above, §§ 102-110, 114-121). [...]
