Communicated cases against France and Hungary

Friday, April 16, 2021

In L.B. v France (application no. 67839/17), the applicant is an intersex person of Moroccan nationality who underwent sexual reassignment treatment in France. He was deported to Morocco after the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons refused to grant him a refugee status. Under Article 3 ECHR, he complains that his expulsion caused an interruption of his medical treatment which is unavailable in Morocco. He also complains that his deportation to a state where being intersex is not accepted and where he is perceived as being homosexual, causes social rejection and criminal prosecution. These risks are aggravated by the lack of a social and family network there and the lack of official recognition of LGBTI organisations. Under Article 8 ECHR he complains that it is impossible to continue medical or surgical treatment that he began in France and he has been deprived of his gender identity. The ECtHR asks, inter alia, whether domestic remedies had been exhausted and whether the applicant’s deportation to Morocco constitutes a violation of Article 3 ECHR taking into account the Moroccan criminal law and Moroccan society’s perception of intersex and homosexual persons. Lastly, the ECtHR asks whether, in light of Paposhvili, the deportation of an intersex person who had undergone such medical treatment in France, constitutes a violation of Article 3 ECHR, having regard to the unavailability of the such treatment in Morocco.

T.A. and Y.T. v France, S.D. and L.J. v France (application nos. 14787/19, 14789/19) concerns the enforcement of administrative court orders requiring the French Office of Immigration and Integration to resume payment of the asylum applicant’s allowance and to offer them accommodation. The ECtHR asks inter alia whether Article 6 ECHR is applicable in this case and whether domestic remedies have been exhausted within the meaning of Article 35(1) ECHR. Assuming the applicability of Article 6, the ECtHR asks whether the guarantees of Article 6(1) and 13, in particular the right to the enforcement of judgments, have been violated.

AZIZI v Hungary (application no. 49231/18) and F.S. and A.S. v Hungary (application no. 50872/18) concern the confinement of unaccompanied Afghan minors at the Röszke transit zone on the border of Hungary and Serbia on various dates. In that respect the applicants invoke Article 5(1) and (4) ECHR. Under Article 3 ECHR taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13 ECHR, they also complain of the allegedly inhuman and degrading conditions during their stay in the transit zone, the lack of appropriate measures that would normally be required for the specific needs of children and the lack of effective remedy in this regard. In F.S. and A.S., the applicants further complain under these articles, about the authorities’ failure to appoint a guardian to them and the lack of psychological support provided to them. The applicants also complain, under Article 8 ECHR taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13 ECHR, inter alia, about the process and outcome of their age assessments and the lack of effective remedy in this regard.

Based on an unofficial translation by the EWLU team.

This item was reproduced with the permission of ECRE from the ELENA Weekly Legal Update. The purpose of these updates is to inform asylum lawyers and legal organizations supporting asylum seekers and refugees of recent developments in the field of asylum law. Please note that the information provided is taken from publicly available information on the internet. Every reasonable effort is made to make the content accurate and up to date at the time each item is published but no responsibility for its accuracy and correctness, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by ECRE.