European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

FIRST SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASES OF A.B. AND OTHERS v. POLAND

 

(Applications nos. 15845/15 and 56300/15)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

4 June 2020

 

 

 

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

 

In the case of A.B. and Others v. Poland,

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

       Pere Pastor Vilanova, President,
            Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
            Pauliine Koskelo, judges,
and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 28 April 2020,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in two applications (nos. 15845/15 and 56300/15) against the Republic of Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by three Russian nationals - Mr A.B. and Mrs T.K. and their son, S.B. (“the applicants”) - on 4 November 2015. The President of the Section decided of his own motion to grant the applicants anonymity (Rule 47 § 4 of the Rules of Court).

2.  The applicants were represented by Mr J. Białas, a lawyer practising in Warsaw. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska, and subsequently by Mr J. Sobczak, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

3.  On 14 June 2016 notice of the applications was given to the Government. In line with the Court’s judgment in I v. Sweden (no. 61204/09, §§ 40-46, 5 September 2013), the Russian Government were not given notice of the present application.

4.  The Government objected to the examination of the application by a Committee. After considering the Government’s objection, the Court dismissed it.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

5.  The applicant in the first case, Mr A.B. (“the first applicant”), was born in 1972. The applicant in the second case, Ms T.K. (“the second applicant”), was born in 1986. The first and second applicants are married to each other and have a son, S.B., who was born on 5 February 2014 (“the third applicant”).

A.    Background

6.  In 2004 the first applicant lodged an application for refugee status in Poland but subsequently left for Austria, where he unsuccessfully lodged an application for refugee status. The proceedings in Poland were discontinued. In 2011 the first applicant again entered Poland and re-applied for refugee status. He was removed from the country in the same year and those proceedings were discontinued.

7.  In January 2015 the three applicants on four occasions unsuccessfully tried to enter Poland. According to the applicants, on each of those four occasions they were not allowed by the border guards to lodge applications for refugee status.

B.     Arrest and detention of the applicants

8.  On 26 January 2015, in the Polish town of Terespol, situated on the Polish-Belarusian border, the applicants applied for refugee status in Poland. The first and the second applicant each received a temporary identification document allowing them to stay with their son on the territory of Poland during the refugee status proceedings. On the same day all three applicants were arrested by border guards.

9.  On 27 January 2015 the Biała Podlaska District Court delivered two separate decisions ordering the detention of the first and the second applicant together with their child at the guarded centre for aliens (Strzeżony Ośrodek dla Cudzoziemców) in Biała Podlaska (“the Guarded Centre for Aliens”) . The court held a hearing at which it heard the first and the second applicant, in the presence of an interpreter. The court noted that the first applicant had already twice applied for refugee status in Poland but that on each occasion he had not pursued his application, so the respective proceedings had been discontinued. In 2004 he had illegally left Poland for Austria, where he had stayed for nine years. In January 2015 he had attempted to enter Poland on four occasions, without applying for asylum. The court considered that that indicated his intention to abuse the procedure for obtaining international protection. In view of the fact that the first and the second applicants had indicated that they had been in good health, placing them in the Guarded Centre for Aliens had not posed any risk to them. In respect of the applicants’ son the court held that the best interests of the child lay in his remaining with his parents.

10.  On 30 January 2015 the first and second applicants lodged appeals against that decision. The applicants complained that given the fact that they had applied for refugee status proceedings they should not have been placed in detention. Moreover, in 2015 they had attempted to enter Poland on four occasions without being allowed by the border guards to apply for international protection. Non-governmental organisations had been warning for a long time that Polish border guards were preventing foreigners from lodging applications for refugee status at the border and sending them back instead. The fact that they had been victims of such an illegal practice on the part of the Polish authorities should not be held against them and constitute grounds for placing them in detention. Lastly, the applicants complained that a guarded centre for aliens could hardly be considered a suitable place for their one-year-old son. The harsh conditions inherent in detention could negatively influence the mental and physical development of their child.

11.  On 18 February 2015 the Lublin Regional Court dismissed the appeals. The court held a hearing in the presence of a prosecutor. The applicants were not notified in advance of the hearing and they were not present at that hearing. In its decision the court stated that there had been a risk of the applicants abusing the refugee status procedure, as in the past the first applicant had not waited for the resolution of his case in Poland, but had gone to live in Austria. Furthermore, the court considered that it had not been possible to apply other measures provided by law since the applicants had not had sufficient financial means to sustain themselves during the asylum proceedings.

12.  Between 17 and 24 March 2015 the third applicant, who was at that time thirteen months old, was hospitalised with pneumonia. While he was hospitalised the second applicant (his mother) stayed with him. After the third applicant was released from hospital they returned to the Guarded Centre for Aliens.

13.  On 19 March 2015 the Biała Podlaska District Court extended the detention measure against the applicants for a further ninety days. The court referred solely to the fact that the refugee status proceedings were still pending, in spite of the first-instance decision dismissing the applicants’ application (see paragraph 23 below). The applicants appealed. They submitted that since their placement in detention their child had been sick, which had necessitated his hospitalisation. They argued that the detention had had a negative influence on his state of health.

14.  On 8 April 2015 the Lublin Regional Court held an appeal hearing at which only the above-mentioned prosecutor was present. The applicants were by that time represented by a lawyer of their own choosing; however, neither the applicants nor their lawyer had been notified of the hearing. The court dismissed their appeal. It considered that the applicants’ child had been released from the hospital in a good state of health.

15.  On 13 May 2015 the first and second applicants applied for the release of all the applicants from detention, arguing that that was necessary for the well-being of their child. On 20 May 2015 an expert opinion on the state of health of the third applicant was presented to the authorities. During the proceedings the authorities requested and obtained an expert opinion on the third applicant’s psychological state; an expert opinion on the third applicant’s educational development was also prepared by the head of the educational team at the Guarded Centre for Aliens. Their applications were dismissed, by a decision of 9 June 2015, by the head of the border guards unit in Biała Podlaska (Komendant Placówki Straży Granicznej). An appeal lodged by them against that decision was dismissed by the Biała Podlaska District Court on 30 June 2015. The domestic authorities, referring to the above-mentioned expert opinions, asserted that the child had been developing harmoniously and that his placement in the centre had not had any negative consequences for him. The authorities noted his hospitalisation and considered that he had received the correct treatment for his illness and had been released from the hospital in a good state of health.

16.  The applicants’ detention at the Guarded Centre for Aliens was prolonged for a further ninety days on 22 June 2015 by the District Court. The applicants lodged an appeal in which they submitted, inter alia, that they had not been notified of the application that had been lodged by the border guards with the District Court for the measure to be extended.

17.  On 15 September 2015 the applicants again lodged an application for their release from the Guarded Centre for Aliens. They submitted that they had been detained for eight months, which had had specific adverse effects on their child. Specifically, he had been suffering from various medical problems (in particular, skin infections, a persistent cough, cavities, and frequent fevers).

18.  On 18 September 2015 the Biała Podlaska District Court again extended the measure against the applicants. On 2 October 2015 the first applicant appealed against that extension, relying on a psychological report prepared on 25 September 2015 by the International Humanitarian Initiative Foundation, a non-governmental organisation. The report concluded that there was a high probability that the first applicant had been suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder due to, very probably, his having been subjected to torture in his country of origin.

19.  Following the allegations raised by the first applicant in his appeal the authorities requested him to undergo another medical examination. On 9 October 2012 the first applicant was examined by a psychiatrist, whose opinion was given to the border guards unit on 12 October 2012.

20.  On 12 October 2015 the head of the border guards unit in Biała Podlaska decided to release all three applicants from the Guarded Centre for Aliens. The reasoning for that decision cited the negative impact of detention on the first applicant’s mental health.

21.  On the same day the applicants were released. Afterwards they left for Germany. On an unspecified date in 2018 the applicants were returned from Germany to Russia.

C.    Refugee-status proceedings

22.  On 6 February 2015 the applicants were heard in the course of the proceedings concerning their application for refugee status.

23.  On 3 March 2015 the head of the Office for Foreigners (Urząd do spraw Cudzoziemców) dismissed the applicants’ application for refugee status.

24.  Following an appeal by the applicants, on 18 May 2015 the Refugee Board confirmed the decision to refuse refugee status to the applicants. An appeal by the first applicant against that decision was dismissed on 10 June 2016 the Warsaw Administrative Court. The applicants lodged a further appeal with the Supreme Court.

25.  On 2 June 2015 the head of the Biała Podlaska border guards issued a decision obliging the applicants to leave the territory of Poland.

26.  On 11 December 2015 the head of the Office for Foreigners declined to grant international protection to the applicants. The Office for Foreigners noted that the applicants’ latest application for refugee status had constituted their fourth, unsuccessful attempt to secure international protection. The applicants lodged an appeal against the decision not to grant them international protection; the course of the subsequent proceedings is not known.

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE

27.  The relevant domestic law and practice has been set out in the Court’s judgment in the case of Bistieva and Others v. Poland, no. 75157/14, §§ 34-41, 10 April 2018. In particular, matters regarding the administrative detention of aliens and their placement in and release from guarded centres are regulated by the Aliens Act of 12 December 2013, which entered into force on 1 May 2013.

THE LAW

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

28.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 §§ 1 AND 4 OF THE CONVENTION

29.  The applicants complained that their administrative detention had been in breach of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. Those provisions, in so far as relevant, read as follows:

“1.  Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:

...

(f)  the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition ...

4.  Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.”

A.    The parties’ submissions

30.  The Government submitted that the applicants had not exhausted the domestic remedies available to them. In particular, they had not appealed against the arrest order of 26 January 2015 under Article 246 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and had not brought an action for compensation for unjustified detention in a guarded centre under section 407 of the Aliens Act of 12 December 2013 (“the 2013 Act”). The Government submitted examples of the final case-law of the Warsaw Court of Appeal and the Białystok Court of Appeal granting compensation under the latter provision in cases similar to the present one. Lastly, they submitted that the applicants could also claim compensation under the Civil Code (compensation for violation of personal rights provided for in Article 24 of the Civil Code).

31.  The applicants argued that the remedies referred to by the Government were either ineffective, not available to them, or had no prospects of success for the purpose of challenging their administrative detention. In particular, the applicants argued that they had appealed against the decision ordering their detention in the Guarded Centre for Aliens of 27 January 2015 and against each decision extending their detention. They had also applied to be released from their detention. Moreover, the remedy provided by the Aliens Act, or a civil claim under Article 24 of the Civil Code, were only of a compensatory nature and did not entail the release of the foreigner in question or any change in his or her detention conditions. The applicants emphasised the fact that that on 2 June 2015, during the course of the refugee status proceedings, the authorities had ordered them to leave the territory of Poland; it would have been difficult for them to participate in the proceedings from abroad. The applicants also argued that the Government had failed to provide examples of national case-law by which the domestic courts had granted compensation to foreigners in a similar situation. Therefore, the remedies invoked by the Government could not be considered effective.

B.     The Court’s assessment

32.  The rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies referred to in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention obliges applicants to use first the remedies that are normally available and sufficient in the domestic legal system to enable them to obtain redress for the breaches alleged. The existence of the remedies must be sufficiently certain, in practice as well as in theory, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (see Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey (dec.) [GC], nos. 46113/99 et al., ECHR 2010, and Włoch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 89, with further references, ECHR 2000‑XI).

33.   The present application was brought before the Court on 4 November 2015 - that is to say when the applicants were already at liberty - after their release from administrative detention (see paragraphs 1 and 20  /above).

34.  The Court notes that section 407 of the 2013 Act, which entered into force on 1 May 2014, provides for a remedy whereby an alien is entitled to seek compensation for his or her manifestly unjustified placement in a guarded centre for aliens. That remedy is available for one year after the release from detention of the foreigner in question. The Court has already examined the effectiveness of that remedy within the context of a similar case and has found that before having their Convention claim examined by this Court, applicants should seek redress at the domestic level and bring an action for compensation under section 407 of the 2013 Act (see Bistieva and Others v Poland, no. 75157/14, § 64, 10 April 2018).

35.   The Court considers that that conclusion applies to the instant case. Moreover, the Court takes into account the examples of the relevant domestic case-law, submitted by the Government, whereby compensation has been awarded to aliens in similar circumstances.

36.   Accordingly, the complaints under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION

37.   The applicants complained under Article 8 of the Convention that their family’s placement in administrative detention had constituted a violation of their right to respect for their private and family life. The relevant part of Article 8 reads:

“1.  Everyone has the right to respect for his ... family life ...

2.  There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

A.    Admissibility

38.   The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It furthermore notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B.     Merits

1.    The parties’ submissions

39.   The applicants submitted that the family’s administrative detention had constituted an unjustified and disproportionate interference with the effective exercise of their family life. The breach of their right to a family life had been caused by the detention itself. Moreover, the authorities had not considered alternative measures. The applicants emphasised the fact that their stay in Poland had been legal, as they had been undergoing the refugee status determination procedure. Therefore, it could not be said that their detention had pursued the legitimate aim of preventing illegal immigration. Nor there was any indication that the applicants had posed a threat to national security or public safety.

40.   The Government contested the allegations and submitted that the administrative detention of the applicants had not breached Article 8 of the Convention. In particular, the placement of the applicants in the Guarded Centre for Aliens had pursued several legitimate aims, namely: the prevention of illegal immigration, and control of entry and residence of aliens. The interference had been necessary, justified by a pressing need, and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. The applicants had been placed in the guarded centre of aliens in accordance with the law, namely the 2013 Aliens Act (see paragraph 27 above).

41.   As regards the conditions of detention at the Guarded Centre for Aliens the Government submitted that those conditions had been good and that the centre had been adapted to accommodate families. It had been equipped with a library, a common room, sports facilities, a school and a playground. The applicants had had a room assigned to them and had been free to move around the centre, to receive guests, and to access the telephone and the Internet. Moreover, foreigners at the centre had had access to doctors (including family doctors and specialists - that is to say paediatricians). Those doctors had been available five days a week, and a nurse had been present every day. The centre had also employed two psychologists and it had been possible to be referred to a medical practitioner off the premises.

2.    The Court’s assessment

42.   The Court finds that there is no doubt as to the existence of “family life”, within the meaning of its case-law, in the present case. The Court finds that even though the three applicants were not separated, the fact that they were confined to a guarded centre aliens for almost nine months - thereby subjecting them to living conditions typical of a custodial institution - can be regarded as constituting an interference with the effective exercise of their family life (ibid., § 73).

43.   Such an interference entails a violation of Article 8 of the Convention unless it can be justified under paragraph 2 of that Article (that is to say if it is “in accordance with the law”), pursues one or more of the aims enumerated in that provision, and is “necessary in a democratic society” for the fulfilment of the said aim or aims.

44.  The legal basis for the three applicants’ detention consisted of the relevant provisions of the 2013 Act (see paragraphs 27 and 40; see also Popov v. France, nos. 39472/07 and 39474/07, § 136, 19 January 2012, A.B. and Others v. France, no. 11593/12, § 147, 12 July 2016; and R.K. and Others v. France, no. 68264/14, § 108, 12 July 2016). As regards the aim pursued by the measure in question, the Court observes that it was taken within the context of the prevention of illegal immigration and controlling the entry and residence of aliens. The Court therefore concludes that the interference pursued a legitimate aim for the purposes of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see Bistieva and Others, § 76; Popov, § 137; A.B. and Others v. France, § 148; and R.K. and Others v. France, § 109, all cited above).

45.   The Court must furthermore determine whether the authorities provided relevant and sufficient reasons for the family’s placement in detention. The authorities have a duty to strike a fair balance between the competing interests of the individual and of society as a whole. It can also be seen from reports by international organisations that the protection of a child’s best interests involves both keeping his or her family together, as far as possible, and considering alternatives, so that the detention of minors is only a measure of last resort (see Bistieva and Others, cited above, § 78).

46.   In the present case, the applicants were placed in administrative detention following their arrival in January 2015 and their application for refugee status (see paragraph 8 above). However, the first applicant had already applied for refugee status in Poland in 2004. That application and the following application lodged in 2011 had been discontinued, as the applicant had not pursued them. In the meantime he had lived in other European countries - in particular, in Austria (see paragraphs 6 and 7  above). Moreover, after their release from detention in October 2015 the three applicants left Poland for Germany (see paragraph 21 above).

In view of all the above-mentioned elements, the Court concludes that the applicants clearly presented a risk of absconding. Their confinement in a guarded centre could therefore appear to have been justified by a pressing social need (see, mutatis mutandis, A.M. and Others v. France, no. 24587/12, § 95, 12 July 2016; also contrast Popov, 145; A.B. and Others v. France, § 154; and R.K. and Others v. France, § 115, all cited above).

47.  The Court furthermore notes that the Guarded Centre for Aliens was designed for families, and the applicants have not raised any particular complaints regarding their living conditions there. The Government provided a detailed account of the facilities available to the applicants (see paragraph 41 above). The Court furthermore notes that the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights has issued a relatively positive evaluation of the organisation and the living conditions in the Guarded Centre for Aliens (see its 2014 report on the monitoring of guarded centres for aliens; [1] also contrast Popov, §§ 91-103; A.B. and Others v. France, §§ 11215; R.K. and Others v. France, §§ 67-72; all cited above, and R.C. and V.C. v. France, no. 76491/14, §§ 35‑40, 12 July 2016, in which the Court found a violation of Article 3 on account of the inadequate conditions of the detention of the applicants’ respective children).

48.   Nevertheless, the Guarded Centre for Aliens had many features of a custodial facility and should be considered as such (see Bistieva and Others, cited above, § 84). In this regard, given the reasoning of the domestic authorities’ decisions, the Court is not convinced that the Polish authorities did in fact (as they should have) view the family’s administrative detention as a measure of last resort or that they gave due consideration to possible alternative measures. The Court also has serious doubts as to whether the authorities gave sufficient consideration to the question of what was in the best interests of the third applicant (a small child), in compliance with obligations stemming from international law and from section 401(4) of the 2013 Act (ibid., § 86).

49.   Accordingly, the Court finds that the authorities failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the applicants’ detention for ten months in a guarded centre for aliens; consequently, it finds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (see Popov, § 148; A.B. and Others v France, § 156; and R.K. and Others v. France, § 117, all cited above).

IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

50.  The applicants complained of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

51.  The applicants argued that the first applicant, who had been a victim of violence in his country of origin, should not have been placed in detention at all. The applicants submitted that the authorities had been aware that the first applicant had been subjected to violence, as that had been noted in in the first applicant’s refugee status application form; in any event, the authorities should have verified whether his state of health was compatible with detention. However, the authorities had ordered a psychological examination of the first applicant only after he had presented the above-mentioned findings of the International Humanitarian Initiative on the state of his mental health (see paragraph 18 above). The applicants also complained that the detention of the third applicant, who had been a small child, had amounted to ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

52.  The Government contested those arguments. In particular they stated that at the time of the arrest of the applicants, the first applicant had indicated that his state of health had been good. Moreover at the time of his admittance to the Guarded Centre for Aliens the first applicant could have turned to a psychologist or informed the authorities of his difficulties. However, he had only raised this issue for the first time in his appeal against the decision of 18 September 2015. Afterwards the authorities had immediately requested a further medical examination of the first applicant, which had been carried out on 9 October 2015; the report on that examination had reached the authorities on 12 October 2015, and the applicants’ release had been ordered on the same day. As regards the third applicant, he had remained with his parents in adequate conditions and had been offered medical assistance. His situation had been examined on several occasions by the domestic authorities, who had found that his development and state of health did not raise any concerns.

A.    Admissibility

53.  The Court notes that this complaint is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B.     Merits

54.  The Court notes that the conditions of detention of the families at the Guarded Centre for Aliens have been described by the Government and examined by the Court (see paragraphs 41 and 47 above). The applicants did not raise any complaint pertaining to inadequate living conditions in the Guarded Centre for Aliens.

55.  As regards the state of health of the first applicant the Court takes note of his argument that in his application of January 2015 for refugee status he submitted that he had suffered violence in his country of origin prior to 2004 (see paragraph 50 above). Nevertheless, there is no indication that during the subsequent nine months of administrative detention he raised with the authorities any specific concern regarding his state of health. Moreover, once the first applicant’s diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder had been brought to the authorities’ attention, they immediately ordered a second medical examination, and subsequently released him promptly from detention. The first applicant failed to advance any argument as to why he had not consulted a psychologist earlier, or otherwise raised his mental health problems with the authorities.

56.  As regards the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention raised in respect of the third applicant (a small child), the applicants provided no further argument in respect of that matter in their observations on admissibility and merits. The Court notes that the authorities on several occasions assessed the child’s development (see paragraphs 9, 14 and 15 above). On each occasion they concluded that the child had been receiving adequate medical attention and that his best interests lay in him staying with his parents.

57.  The Court therefore concludes that the gist of the applicants’ complaints has already been examined under Article 8. Having regard to the findings relating to the latter (see paragraph 49 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether, in this case, there has been a violation of Article 3.

V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

58.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

A.    Damage

59.  The applicants claimed 15,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

60.  The Government contested the claim.

61.  The Court awards the three applicants jointly EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

B.     Costs and expenses

62.  The applicants did not make any claim in respect of costs and expenses.

C.    Default interest

63.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.      Decides to join the applications;

2.      Declares the complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;

3.      Holds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;

4.      Holds that there is no need to examine the complaints under Article 3 of the Convention;

5.      Holds

(a)   that the respondent State is to pay the three applicants jointly, within three months, 10,000 (ten thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period, plus three percentage points;

6.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 June 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

  Renata Degener                                                               Pere Pastor Vilanova
Deputy Registrar                                                                       President