I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in AZALIYA, TOV v. UKRAINE.

Judgment

FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF N.N. AND OTHERS v. GREECE
(Applications nos. 59319/19 and 3 others – see appended list)

JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
19 December 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of N.N. and Others v. Greece,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President, Gilberto Felici, Kateřina Šimáčková, judges,and Sophie Piquet, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications against the Hellenic Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein;
the decision not to have the applicants’ names disclosed;
the decision to give notice of the applications to the Greek Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent’s delegates, initially by Mr I. Chalkias, President of the State Legal Council, and later by Ms E. Veloni, President of the State Legal Council;
the decision to give priority to the applications (Rule 41 of the Rules of Court), and the decision to indicate an interim measure to the respondent Government under Rule 39 in all applications, which was lifted in application no. 59319/19 and was still in place in applications nos. 5340/20, 9288/20 and 11507/20 at the time of examination of those cases;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 28 November 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the living conditions of the applicants, who alleged that, at the time of lodging their applications with the Court, they had been homeless, unaccompanied immigrant minors in Greece. The applicants also raised the issue of their right, as minors, to prompt family reunification. The details of their cases are provided in the Appendix. 2. The applicants submitted that they had arrived in Greece between September and December 2019 and that, at that time, they had been unaccompanied minors. According to the applicants, they had not been provided with access to information relating to the asylum procedure or with interpreters at the time of their registration by the authorities. They further submitted that the age-assessment procedure for asylum-seekers, which under Greek law included a compulsory medical and psychosocial evaluation, had not been followed by the authorities, which, as a matter of convenience, had registered them as adults. The applicants submitted that the delayed registration of unaccompanied minors was a common practice in Greece. Furthermore, despite the indication of interim measures by the Court, the Greek authorities had failed to place them in suitable accommodation within a reasonable time. That delay had added to the trauma they had suffered as a result of living on the streets or being placed in unsuitable police detention cells (see Appendix for more details). The applicants also argued that reunification with their families had been either hindered (application no. 9288/20) or put at risk (applications nos. 59319/19, 5340/20 and 11507/20) as a result of deficient registration procedures. The applicants in applications nos. 59319/19, 5340/20 and 11507/20 acknowledged that they had eventually been reunited with their family members. 3. The Government submitted that the applicants had arrived in Greece illegally and that at the time of their arrests they had not provided accurate information regarding their age or unaccompanied status. They further submitted that in Greece, underage asylum-seekers, whether accompanied or not, were considered to be a vulnerable group, and as soon as a person was identified as a minor, special guarantees were applicable in line with the relevant procedures. Furthermore, the relevant stakeholders, such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the International Organisation for Migration and various non-governmental organisations (“NGOs”), were aware that there was unrestricted access to information, interpretation and medical and legal aid in the country’s reception and identification centres. Lastly, they submitted that all the necessary measures, including placing the applicants in accommodation for minors and ensuring reunification with their families, had been taken within a reasonable time (see Appendix for more details). THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
4. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 5. On 26 October 2023 the applicant in application no. 9288/20 (H.A.) informed the Court that he no longer wished to pursue his application. The Government submitted no comments in that regard. 6. The Court takes note of the fact that the applicant H.A. no longer wishes to pursue his application (Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention). Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto which require the continued examination of application no. 9288/20. Consequently, the interim measure previously indicated in this application therefore ceases to have any basis, and application no. 9288/20 should be struck out of the list of cases. 7. The applicants in applications nos. 59319/19, 5340/20 and 11507/20 (N.N., S.A. and Y.N.) complained that their living conditions, before they had been placed in shelters appropriate for their age, had not been compatible with Article 3 of the Convention. The Government submitted that they had not been responsible for the applicants’ living conditions between the time of their irregular entry and the date on which they had presented themselves to the authorities. The authorities had acted with the necessary diligence as regards the individual situations of the applicants. 8. The Government argued that N.N., S.A. and Y.N. had lost their victim status because the authorities had taken the necessary protective measures. The applicants argued that the alleged violation had not been acknowledged and no redress had been afforded. 9. The Court observes that even though the applicants N.N., S.A. and Y.N. were indeed placed in shelters, no evidence has been submitted to show that the authorities had acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and had then afforded redress for the alleged breach of the Convention. Therefore, the Government’s objection as to the loss of victim status must be dismissed. 10. The Government also argued that since the applicants had not duly notified the authorities of their age and personal situations, and had provided misleading information, they (i) could not claim to be victims of the alleged violation, (ii) had abused the right of individual application, and (iii) had failed to raise the relevant complaints with the domestic authorities. The applicants disagreed and contended that they had been affected by deficiencies in the age assessment procedure for asylum-seekers. The Government’s objections concern the timing of when the authorities were or ought to have been notified of the applicants’ circumstances, and as such, they are closely linked to the merits of the complaint. The Court will therefore examine them together. The Court further notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It also notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 11. The general principles concerning the living conditions of asylum‐seekers have been summarised in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece ([GC], no. 30696/09, §§ 249-64, ECHR 2011). The Court further refers to its case-law regarding the reception of unaccompanied or accompanied minors, noting the importance of bearing in mind that a child’s extreme vulnerability is the decisive factor and takes precedence over considerations relating to the status of illegal immigrant (see R.R. and Others v. Hungary, no. 36037/17, § 49, 2 March 2021; Khan v. France, no. 12267/16, § 74, 28 February 2019; N.T.P. and Others v. France, no. 68862/13, § 44, 24 May 2018; Popov v. France, nos. 39472/07 and 39474/07, § 91, 19 January 2012; Rahimi v. Greece, no. 8687/08, § 87, 5 April 2011; Muskhadzhiyeva and Others v. Belgium, no. 41442/07, §§ 55 and 63, 19 January 2010). 12. The applicants in the present case lived either in “protective custody” in appalling conditions, on the streets, or in substandard housing for periods of between one and a half and five months. They were registered as minors and placed in living conditions appropriate for their age only after the application of interim measures by the Court (see Appendix, “Additional information”). The Court considers that the delays in placing the applicants in shelters were caused by shortcomings in the procedures for the registration and age assessment of asylum-seekers, which prevented the applicants from appropriately communicating information about their age and personal situations and which cannot be attributed to them. In particular, even though the Government submitted that the applicants’ allegations regarding the lack of access to information and interpretation had been inaccurate, they did not submit any evidence capable of showing that N.N. had indeed been provided, as they submitted, with an interpreter or that it had been possible for S.A. to have his request for asylum registered in a timely manner through a dedicated and functioning videoconferencing system in a language that he understood (see Appendix for the Government’s submissions). The Government further presented no evidence that the age assessment procedures for asylum-seekers, as referred to by the applicants and the Government themselves (see paragraphs 2 and 3 above), had in fact been followed in the cases of N.N., S.A. and Y.N. (see Appendix) or that practical information about their rights or the possibility of lodging appeals with the competent authorities or the domestic courts had been made available to them. The applicants were therefore not identified in a timely manner as minors in need of special protection and they were 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, and, for similar reasoning, Rahimi v. Greece, cited above, §§ 87-94, 5 April 2011). 13. 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, as homeless unaccompanied immigrant minors, exceeded the threshold of severity required to engage Article 3 of the Convention. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. 14. The applicants N.N., S.A. and Y.N. also raised a complaint under Article 8 of the Convention concerning the right to reunification with family members residing in other member States. The Government submitted that those applicants had been successfully reunited with their families. The Court has examined this part of their applications and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession, in particular the applicants’ acknowledgment that they had indeed been reunited with their families (see paragraph 2 above ), and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, this complaint does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this complaint must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. 15. On the dates specified in the Appendix, the Court indicated to the Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that S.A. and Y.N. should be provided with suitable accommodation. The Court notes that the Government complied with the measure indicated to them and it therefore ceases to have any basis in applications nos. 5340/20 and 11507/20. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
16. The applicants in applications nos. 59319/19 and 5340/20 (N.N. and S.A.) both claimed 12,000 euros (EUR) and the applicant in application no. 11507/20 (Y.N.) claimed EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 17. The Government submitted that the amounts claimed were excessive and unjustified and that the potential finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction. 18. The Court considers it reasonable to award N.N., S.A. and Y.N. EUR 3,000 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay N.N., S.A. and Y.N. (applications nos. 59319/19, 5340/20 and 11507/20), within three months, EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) each, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage,
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 19 December 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Sophie Piquet Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX
List of cases:
No. Application no. Lodged on
ApplicantYear of birthPlace of residenceNationality
Represented by
Date and point of entry to Greece

Dates of detention/release

Details of arrest, identification procedure and living conditions

Additional information
1. 59319/19
18/11/2019
N.N.2004Bielefeld (Germany)Afghan
Niki GEORGIOU
29/09/2019

03/10/2019 – 04/10/2019

The Government’s submissions:

(i) upon arrest, the applicant had declared 2001 as his year of birth; he had provided a false ID (he had given a different name when claiming asylum at a later date); he had not expressed a wish to claim asylum;

(ii) following the application of interim measures by the Court, a document had been issued on 22/11/2019 ordering the placement of N.N. in a shelter and, owing to his vulnerability, the registration of his asylum claim had been scheduled for that same day and an interview date had been set for 20/05/2020;

(iii) on 25/11/2019 the public prosecutor for minors had contacted N.N.’s representatives to establish his whereabouts, with a view to placing him in a shelter;

(iv) on 22/11/2019 a request for reunification with N.N.’s brother in Germany had been lodged; on 13/03/2020 it had been accepted by Germany and on 30/07/2020 N.N. had been transferred to that country. The applicant’s submissions:

(i) he had not been provided with an interpreter upon his arrest, this being a common practice according to the findings of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions during its visit to Greece in December 2019;

(ii) he had indicated his age (15) to the police officer who had arrested him, by raising five fingers three times; however, the police registered him as an adult, as they routinely did with all asylum-seekers;

(iii) his name had been incorrectly recorded by the police officer and he had been unable to object;

(iv) he had been unable to read or understand the information provided about the asylum procedure;

(v) the interview date had been promptly scheduled not because the authorities had considered him to be a minor but because he had indicated that he wished to be reunited with his brother in Germany;

(vi) despite the decision of 22/11/2019 to place him in a shelter, no information had been given to him about this placement (its location, any medical examination or appointment of a legal guardian);

(vii) on 28/11/2019 he had been placed in “protective custody” at Omonia police station pending a medical examination, at the request of the public prosecutor for minors; during his four-day stay (28/11/2019 – 01/12/2019), he had been placed in a cell with no natural light; he had had no access to an interpreter or to a shower, he had not been provided with regular meals, and he had been given no information about the length of his stay or about his case;

(viii) before he had been placed in the shelter, he had lived on the streets for two months; he had had no warm clothes and had stayed under bridges, changing place every day, sleeping in shifts in the streets and being sheltered by other members of the group with a plastic bag, walking for hours, and having no access to basic hygiene facilities. 15 years old at the time of the application

Homeless between: 04/10/2019 and 01/12/2019 (1 month and 27 days)

18/11/2019 - Rule 39 applied by the Court

22/11/2019 – document issued by the National Centre of Social Solidarity (“the EKKA”) in respect of N.N. ordering his placement in a shelter

28/11/2019 – reminder sent by the Court to the parties to collaborate to ensure compliance with the indicated measure

01/12/2019 – actual placement of N.N. in a shelter

18/12/2019 – Rule 39 measure lifted

2. 5340/20
24/01/2020
S.A.2007United KingdomAfghan
Niki GEORGIOU
End of December 2019

The Government’s submissions:

(i) S.A. had not presented himself to the authorities for registration after he had entered Greece; he had not disclosed his personal situation to the authorities and had not requested accommodation; any request he had made had been sent to the wrong email address;

(ii) on 27/01/2020 the public prosecutor for minors in Athens had been informed of the interim measure; on 28/01/2020 the EKKA had found S.A. temporary accommodation, where he had stayed pending the results of his medical examination, and on 14/02/2020 he had been placed in a suitable shelter. The applicant’s submissions:
(i) upon arrival in Greece, he had looked for ways to approach the authorities but the Skype-based asylum registration system for Farsi speakers had been unavailable or busy;

(ii) on 20/01/2020 his representatives had sent a request for asylum registration and on 21/01/2020 they had sent a request for accommodation to the Greek authorities’ email address, which had been correct at the time and had only changed at a later date;

(iii) at the time there had been lengthy delays in the registration of asylum claims of unaccompanied immigrant minors; the reception conditions in the only mainland reception and identification centre in Greece were not suitable for minors, as confirmed by the UNHCR in a case (no. 173/2018) before the European Committee for Social Rights;

(iv) when he had arrived in Greece he had been 12 years old and had stayed in a two-room flat in Athens with twenty other men, most of them adults; the flat had been small, cold and dirty, and infested with bedbugs; he had slept on the floor with no bed or mattress in a room with ten other men; later he had moved out to the streets, with no warm clothes. 12 years old at the time of the application to the Court

Homeless between:
end of December 2019 – 14/02/2020 (around 1.5 months)

24/01/2020 – interim measure under Rule 39 applied by the Court

14/02/2020 – actual placement in a shelter

3. 9288/20
17/02/2020
H.A.2003KastoriaAfghan
Niki GEORGIOU
n/a
n/a
n/a
18/02/2020 – Rule 39 applied
4. 11507/20
02/03/2020
Y.N.2004United KingdomAfghan
Niki GEORGIOU
September 2019 / Evros border
16/09/2019 – 25/10/2019
The Government’s submissions:

(i) on 16/09/2019 Y.N. had been placed in Fylakio Reception and Identification Centre (“the Fylakio centre”), where he had been informed, in his native language, Dari, about the identification and reception procedures;

(ii) during the registration procedure, in the presence of an interpreter, he had declared 2001 as his year of birth and had therefore been registered as an adult; neither the medical nor the administrative team at the Fylakio centre had expressed any doubt as to his age and he had therefore not been referred for the age assessment procedure;

(iii) after leaving the Drama pre-removal centre, Y.N. had not been homeless; he had been accommodated in a flat in Athens with acquaintances of his family;

(iv) on 28/01/2020 Y.N. had indicated 2004 as his year of birth in his request for asylum submitted through an NGO and had expressed his wish to be reunited with his uncle in the United Kingdom; on the same day the public prosecutor for minors had requested to have a temporary guardian appointed for Y.N. (v) on 28/01/2020 a request had been sent to the EKKA to find suitable accommodation for Y.N. and on 10/03/2020 a place in a shelter for minors had been assigned to him, where he had eventually been transferred on 26/03/2020. The applicant’s submissions:

(i) he had been arrested and taken to the Fylakio centre, where he had stayed for 10 days, following which he had stayed for 35 days in the Drama pre-removal centre; he had been arbitrarily registered as an adult even though he had repeatedly stated that he was a minor; he had not been provided with any means to enable him to provide his personal information, including his age; his Afghan ID, which showed that he was a minor, had not been accepted by the authorities, as it had not been translated. (ii) the conditions of detention in both centres had been unsuitable for the needs of an unaccompanied immigrant minor;

(iii) upon release from detention, he had had nowhere to go, had followed a group of people who had moved to Athens and had stayed in a flat where he had been the only minor in a group of adult men. 16 years old at the time of the application to the Court

Homeless between:
26/10/2019 and 26/03/2020
(5 months):

02/03/2020 – Rule 39 applied by the Court

26/03/2020 – placement in a shelter

FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF N.N. AND OTHERS v. GREECE
(Applications nos. 59319/19 and 3 others – see appended list)

JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
19 December 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of N.N. and Others v. Greece,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President, Gilberto Felici, Kateřina Šimáčková, judges,and Sophie Piquet, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications against the Hellenic Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein;
the decision not to have the applicants’ names disclosed;
the decision to give notice of the applications to the Greek Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent’s delegates, initially by Mr I. Chalkias, President of the State Legal Council, and later by Ms E. Veloni, President of the State Legal Council;
the decision to give priority to the applications (Rule 41 of the Rules of Court), and the decision to indicate an interim measure to the respondent Government under Rule 39 in all applications, which was lifted in application no. 59319/19 and was still in place in applications nos. 5340/20, 9288/20 and 11507/20 at the time of examination of those cases;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 28 November 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the living conditions of the applicants, who alleged that, at the time of lodging their applications with the Court, they had been homeless, unaccompanied immigrant minors in Greece. The applicants also raised the issue of their right, as minors, to prompt family reunification. The details of their cases are provided in the Appendix. 2. The applicants submitted that they had arrived in Greece between September and December 2019 and that, at that time, they had been unaccompanied minors. According to the applicants, they had not been provided with access to information relating to the asylum procedure or with interpreters at the time of their registration by the authorities. They further submitted that the age-assessment procedure for asylum-seekers, which under Greek law included a compulsory medical and psychosocial evaluation, had not been followed by the authorities, which, as a matter of convenience, had registered them as adults. The applicants submitted that the delayed registration of unaccompanied minors was a common practice in Greece. Furthermore, despite the indication of interim measures by the Court, the Greek authorities had failed to place them in suitable accommodation within a reasonable time. That delay had added to the trauma they had suffered as a result of living on the streets or being placed in unsuitable police detention cells (see Appendix for more details). The applicants also argued that reunification with their families had been either hindered (application no. 9288/20) or put at risk (applications nos. 59319/19, 5340/20 and 11507/20) as a result of deficient registration procedures. The applicants in applications nos. 59319/19, 5340/20 and 11507/20 acknowledged that they had eventually been reunited with their family members. 3. The Government submitted that the applicants had arrived in Greece illegally and that at the time of their arrests they had not provided accurate information regarding their age or unaccompanied status. They further submitted that in Greece, underage asylum-seekers, whether accompanied or not, were considered to be a vulnerable group, and as soon as a person was identified as a minor, special guarantees were applicable in line with the relevant procedures. Furthermore, the relevant stakeholders, such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the International Organisation for Migration and various non-governmental organisations (“NGOs”), were aware that there was unrestricted access to information, interpretation and medical and legal aid in the country’s reception and identification centres. Lastly, they submitted that all the necessary measures, including placing the applicants in accommodation for minors and ensuring reunification with their families, had been taken within a reasonable time (see Appendix for more details). THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
4. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 5. On 26 October 2023 the applicant in application no. 9288/20 (H.A.) informed the Court that he no longer wished to pursue his application. The Government submitted no comments in that regard. 6. The Court takes note of the fact that the applicant H.A. no longer wishes to pursue his application (Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention). Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto which require the continued examination of application no. 9288/20. Consequently, the interim measure previously indicated in this application therefore ceases to have any basis, and application no. 9288/20 should be struck out of the list of cases. 7. The applicants in applications nos. 59319/19, 5340/20 and 11507/20 (N.N., S.A. and Y.N.) complained that their living conditions, before they had been placed in shelters appropriate for their age, had not been compatible with Article 3 of the Convention. The Government submitted that they had not been responsible for the applicants’ living conditions between the time of their irregular entry and the date on which they had presented themselves to the authorities. The authorities had acted with the necessary diligence as regards the individual situations of the applicants. 8. The Government argued that N.N., S.A. and Y.N. had lost their victim status because the authorities had taken the necessary protective measures. The applicants argued that the alleged violation had not been acknowledged and no redress had been afforded. 9. The Court observes that even though the applicants N.N., S.A. and Y.N. were indeed placed in shelters, no evidence has been submitted to show that the authorities had acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and had then afforded redress for the alleged breach of the Convention. Therefore, the Government’s objection as to the loss of victim status must be dismissed. 10. The Government also argued that since the applicants had not duly notified the authorities of their age and personal situations, and had provided misleading information, they (i) could not claim to be victims of the alleged violation, (ii) had abused the right of individual application, and (iii) had failed to raise the relevant complaints with the domestic authorities. The applicants disagreed and contended that they had been affected by deficiencies in the age assessment procedure for asylum-seekers. The Government’s objections concern the timing of when the authorities were or ought to have been notified of the applicants’ circumstances, and as such, they are closely linked to the merits of the complaint. The Court will therefore examine them together. The Court further notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It also notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 11. The general principles concerning the living conditions of asylum‐seekers have been summarised in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece ([GC], no. 30696/09, §§ 249-64, ECHR 2011). The Court further refers to its case-law regarding the reception of unaccompanied or accompanied minors, noting the importance of bearing in mind that a child’s extreme vulnerability is the decisive factor and takes precedence over considerations relating to the status of illegal immigrant (see R.R. and Others v. Hungary, no. 36037/17, § 49, 2 March 2021; Khan v. France, no. 12267/16, § 74, 28 February 2019; N.T.P. and Others v. France, no. 68862/13, § 44, 24 May 2018; Popov v. France, nos. 39472/07 and 39474/07, § 91, 19 January 2012; Rahimi v. Greece, no. 8687/08, § 87, 5 April 2011; Muskhadzhiyeva and Others v. Belgium, no. 41442/07, §§ 55 and 63, 19 January 2010). 12. The applicants in the present case lived either in “protective custody” in appalling conditions, on the streets, or in substandard housing for periods of between one and a half and five months. They were registered as minors and placed in living conditions appropriate for their age only after the application of interim measures by the Court (see Appendix, “Additional information”). The Court considers that the delays in placing the applicants in shelters were caused by shortcomings in the procedures for the registration and age assessment of asylum-seekers, which prevented the applicants from appropriately communicating information about their age and personal situations and which cannot be attributed to them. In particular, even though the Government submitted that the applicants’ allegations regarding the lack of access to information and interpretation had been inaccurate, they did not submit any evidence capable of showing that N.N. had indeed been provided, as they submitted, with an interpreter or that it had been possible for S.A. to have his request for asylum registered in a timely manner through a dedicated and functioning videoconferencing system in a language that he understood (see Appendix for the Government’s submissions). The Government further presented no evidence that the age assessment procedures for asylum-seekers, as referred to by the applicants and the Government themselves (see paragraphs 2 and 3 above), had in fact been followed in the cases of N.N., S.A. and Y.N. (see Appendix) or that practical information about their rights or the possibility of lodging appeals with the competent authorities or the domestic courts had been made available to them. The applicants were therefore not identified in a timely manner as minors in need of special protection and they were 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, and, for similar reasoning, Rahimi v. Greece, cited above, §§ 87-94, 5 April 2011). 13. 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, as homeless unaccompanied immigrant minors, exceeded the threshold of severity required to engage Article 3 of the Convention. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. 14. The applicants N.N., S.A. and Y.N. also raised a complaint under Article 8 of the Convention concerning the right to reunification with family members residing in other member States. The Government submitted that those applicants had been successfully reunited with their families. The Court has examined this part of their applications and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession, in particular the applicants’ acknowledgment that they had indeed been reunited with their families (see paragraph 2 above ), and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, this complaint does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this complaint must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. 15. On the dates specified in the Appendix, the Court indicated to the Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that S.A. and Y.N. should be provided with suitable accommodation. The Court notes that the Government complied with the measure indicated to them and it therefore ceases to have any basis in applications nos. 5340/20 and 11507/20. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
16. The applicants in applications nos. 59319/19 and 5340/20 (N.N. and S.A.) both claimed 12,000 euros (EUR) and the applicant in application no. 11507/20 (Y.N.) claimed EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 17. The Government submitted that the amounts claimed were excessive and unjustified and that the potential finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction. 18. The Court considers it reasonable to award N.N., S.A. and Y.N. EUR 3,000 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay N.N., S.A. and Y.N. (applications nos. 59319/19, 5340/20 and 11507/20), within three months, EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) each, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage,
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 19 December 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Sophie Piquet Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX
List of cases:
No. Application no. Lodged on
ApplicantYear of birthPlace of residenceNationality
Represented by
Date and point of entry to Greece

Dates of detention/release

Details of arrest, identification procedure and living conditions

Additional information
1. 59319/19
18/11/2019
N.N.2004Bielefeld (Germany)Afghan
Niki GEORGIOU
29/09/2019

03/10/2019 – 04/10/2019

The Government’s submissions:

(i) upon arrest, the applicant had declared 2001 as his year of birth; he had provided a false ID (he had given a different name when claiming asylum at a later date); he had not expressed a wish to claim asylum;

(ii) following the application of interim measures by the Court, a document had been issued on 22/11/2019 ordering the placement of N.N. in a shelter and, owing to his vulnerability, the registration of his asylum claim had been scheduled for that same day and an interview date had been set for 20/05/2020;

(iii) on 25/11/2019 the public prosecutor for minors had contacted N.N.’s representatives to establish his whereabouts, with a view to placing him in a shelter;

(iv) on 22/11/2019 a request for reunification with N.N.’s brother in Germany had been lodged; on 13/03/2020 it had been accepted by Germany and on 30/07/2020 N.N. had been transferred to that country. The applicant’s submissions:

(i) he had not been provided with an interpreter upon his arrest, this being a common practice according to the findings of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions during its visit to Greece in December 2019;

(ii) he had indicated his age (15) to the police officer who had arrested him, by raising five fingers three times; however, the police registered him as an adult, as they routinely did with all asylum-seekers;

(iii) his name had been incorrectly recorded by the police officer and he had been unable to object;

(iv) he had been unable to read or understand the information provided about the asylum procedure;

(v) the interview date had been promptly scheduled not because the authorities had considered him to be a minor but because he had indicated that he wished to be reunited with his brother in Germany;

(vi) despite the decision of 22/11/2019 to place him in a shelter, no information had been given to him about this placement (its location, any medical examination or appointment of a legal guardian);

(vii) on 28/11/2019 he had been placed in “protective custody” at Omonia police station pending a medical examination, at the request of the public prosecutor for minors; during his four-day stay (28/11/2019 – 01/12/2019), he had been placed in a cell with no natural light; he had had no access to an interpreter or to a shower, he had not been provided with regular meals, and he had been given no information about the length of his stay or about his case;

(viii) before he had been placed in the shelter, he had lived on the streets for two months; he had had no warm clothes and had stayed under bridges, changing place every day, sleeping in shifts in the streets and being sheltered by other members of the group with a plastic bag, walking for hours, and having no access to basic hygiene facilities. 15 years old at the time of the application

Homeless between: 04/10/2019 and 01/12/2019 (1 month and 27 days)

18/11/2019 - Rule 39 applied by the Court

22/11/2019 – document issued by the National Centre of Social Solidarity (“the EKKA”) in respect of N.N. ordering his placement in a shelter

28/11/2019 – reminder sent by the Court to the parties to collaborate to ensure compliance with the indicated measure

01/12/2019 – actual placement of N.N. in a shelter

18/12/2019 – Rule 39 measure lifted

2. 5340/20
24/01/2020
S.A.2007United KingdomAfghan
Niki GEORGIOU
End of December 2019

The Government’s submissions:

(i) S.A. had not presented himself to the authorities for registration after he had entered Greece; he had not disclosed his personal situation to the authorities and had not requested accommodation; any request he had made had been sent to the wrong email address;

(ii) on 27/01/2020 the public prosecutor for minors in Athens had been informed of the interim measure; on 28/01/2020 the EKKA had found S.A. temporary accommodation, where he had stayed pending the results of his medical examination, and on 14/02/2020 he had been placed in a suitable shelter. The applicant’s submissions:
(i) upon arrival in Greece, he had looked for ways to approach the authorities but the Skype-based asylum registration system for Farsi speakers had been unavailable or busy;

(ii) on 20/01/2020 his representatives had sent a request for asylum registration and on 21/01/2020 they had sent a request for accommodation to the Greek authorities’ email address, which had been correct at the time and had only changed at a later date;

(iii) at the time there had been lengthy delays in the registration of asylum claims of unaccompanied immigrant minors; the reception conditions in the only mainland reception and identification centre in Greece were not suitable for minors, as confirmed by the UNHCR in a case (no. 173/2018) before the European Committee for Social Rights;

(iv) when he had arrived in Greece he had been 12 years old and had stayed in a two-room flat in Athens with twenty other men, most of them adults; the flat had been small, cold and dirty, and infested with bedbugs; he had slept on the floor with no bed or mattress in a room with ten other men; later he had moved out to the streets, with no warm clothes. 12 years old at the time of the application to the Court

Homeless between:
end of December 2019 – 14/02/2020 (around 1.5 months)

24/01/2020 – interim measure under Rule 39 applied by the Court

14/02/2020 – actual placement in a shelter

3. 9288/20
17/02/2020
H.A.2003KastoriaAfghan
Niki GEORGIOU
n/a
n/a
n/a
18/02/2020 – Rule 39 applied
4. 11507/20
02/03/2020
Y.N.2004United KingdomAfghan
Niki GEORGIOU
September 2019 / Evros border
16/09/2019 – 25/10/2019
The Government’s submissions:

(i) on 16/09/2019 Y.N. had been placed in Fylakio Reception and Identification Centre (“the Fylakio centre”), where he had been informed, in his native language, Dari, about the identification and reception procedures;

(ii) during the registration procedure, in the presence of an interpreter, he had declared 2001 as his year of birth and had therefore been registered as an adult; neither the medical nor the administrative team at the Fylakio centre had expressed any doubt as to his age and he had therefore not been referred for the age assessment procedure;

(iii) after leaving the Drama pre-removal centre, Y.N. had not been homeless; he had been accommodated in a flat in Athens with acquaintances of his family;

(iv) on 28/01/2020 Y.N. had indicated 2004 as his year of birth in his request for asylum submitted through an NGO and had expressed his wish to be reunited with his uncle in the United Kingdom; on the same day the public prosecutor for minors had requested to have a temporary guardian appointed for Y.N. (v) on 28/01/2020 a request had been sent to the EKKA to find suitable accommodation for Y.N. and on 10/03/2020 a place in a shelter for minors had been assigned to him, where he had eventually been transferred on 26/03/2020. The applicant’s submissions:

(i) he had been arrested and taken to the Fylakio centre, where he had stayed for 10 days, following which he had stayed for 35 days in the Drama pre-removal centre; he had been arbitrarily registered as an adult even though he had repeatedly stated that he was a minor; he had not been provided with any means to enable him to provide his personal information, including his age; his Afghan ID, which showed that he was a minor, had not been accepted by the authorities, as it had not been translated. (ii) the conditions of detention in both centres had been unsuitable for the needs of an unaccompanied immigrant minor;

(iii) upon release from detention, he had had nowhere to go, had followed a group of people who had moved to Athens and had stayed in a flat where he had been the only minor in a group of adult men. 16 years old at the time of the application to the Court

Homeless between:
26/10/2019 and 26/03/2020
(5 months):

02/03/2020 – Rule 39 applied by the Court

26/03/2020 – placement in a shelter