A.A. against Serbia

The European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is14. made on October 2025, and announced the decision in the case on November 20, 2025A.A. against Serbia, number 50898/20.

The decision was unanimousbroughtseven-member Council.

The subject was communicated to the Republic of Serbia asimpact case (case of influence).

THE CIRCUMSTANCES CASES

The applicant (hereinafter: the applicant) is an Afghan citizen who had the status of an asylum seeker in the Republic of Serbia during the state of emergency declared due to the risk of the spread of an infectious disease.COVID-19 located in the Asylum Center in Krnjača. The applicant was an unaccompanied minor at the time, and he turned 18 on October 4, 2020.

On March 10, 2020, the Government of the Republic of Serbia adopted the Decision on the declaration of the diseaseCOVID-19an infectious disease whose prevention and control is of interest to the Republic of Serbia. This decision came into force on the same day.

In accordance with the aforementioned decision, on March 15, 2020, the President of the Republic, the President of the National Assembly and the Prime Minister made the Decision on the declaration of a state of emergency on the territory of the Republic of Serbia, which entered into force on the same day. On that day, the Government of the Republic of Serbia also adopted the Decree on measures during a state of emergency, which, among other things, provided that the Ministry of Internal Affairs, with the consent of the Ministry of Health, has the ability to temporarily restrict or prohibit the movement of persons in public places, and all gatherings, both indoors and outdoors, were prohibited.

The next day, on March 16, 2020, the Government issued a Decision on the temporary restriction of the movement of asylum seekers and irregular migrants housed in asylum centers and reception centers in the Republic of Serbia. The decision envisages increased supervision and security of these facilities, and cases of deviation from the temporary restriction of movement are also prescribed. There were situations when it was justified under the given circumstances (eg going to the doctor) and in those situations a special permit with a certain time limit, issued by the Commissariat for Refugees and Migration of the Republic of Serbia, was necessary.

During the duration of the state of emergency, the Government passed various decrees and decisions by which it eased the strict measures of complete restriction of movement that were valid for certain categories of persons (eg pensioners). With the improvement of the epidemiological situation, certain businesses are allowed to operate, such as green markets, beauty salons, gyms, etc. However, until the end of the state of emergency, no legal regulation was adopted that in any way eased the restrictions on the freedom of movement of asylum seekers and irregular migrants housed in asylum centers and reception centers.

The Government's decision to lift the state of emergency was made on May 6, 2020. The very next day, on May 7, 2020, the Minister of Health issued an Order on the restriction of movement at the entrances to the open space and the facilities of reception centers for migrants and asylum centers ("Official Gazette No. 66/20) by which the users of these centers were still prohibited from leaving them. The duration of the measures was specified in an unspecified manner "until the end of the danger of the spread of an infectious diseaseCOVID-19on the territory of the Republic of Serbia". This order was in force for the next seven days, before it was repealed by the Order of the Minister of Health dated May 14, 2020.

The Constitutional Court decidedIUo-45/2020 of September 17, 2020 determined that the provisions of Article 4c paragraph 6 and Article 4d paragraph 2 of the Regulation on Measures during a State of Emergency ("Official Gazette of the RS", No. 31/20, 36/20, 38/20, 39/20, 43/20, 47/20, 49/20, 53/20, 56/20, 57/20, 58/20 and 60/20) and Article 2 of the Regulation on the misdemeanor for violation of the Order of the Minister of Internal Affairs on the restriction and prohibition of the movement of persons in the territory of the Republic of Serbia ("Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia", number 39/20) were not in accordance with the Constitution and the ratified international agreement at the time of their validity, in the part that reads: "regardless of the prohibition from Article 8, paragraph 3 of the Law on misdemeanors", and with regard to determining the unconstitutionality and illegality of the provisions of Art. 1a, 2 and 3 of the Regulation on measures during a state of emergency and determining the unconstitutionality of the Order on the restriction and prohibition of the movement of persons on the territory of the Republic of Serbia, the procedure has been suspended.

The applicant criticized the aforementioned decision in the sense that the Constitutional Court did not properly apply the criteria from the Court's practice when assessing whether the restriction of movement of asylum seekers and irregular migrants housed in asylum centers and reception centers in the Republic of Serbia can be considered a deprivation of liberty. Also, according to the opinion of the applicant, the criteria for evaluating the existence of discrimination were not properly applied.

COMPLAINTS OF THE APPLICANT AND THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT

The applicant submitted the application to the Court on 14. November 2020.

In the petition, the applicant complained about the violation of the right to freedom and security from Article 5, para. 1-5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: the Convention), claiming that his right was called into question by the announced measures of the Government of the Republic of Serbia, and that he could not claim compensation for the allegedly illegal and arbitrary deprivation of liberty to which he was subjected. The applicant claimed that he was also a victim of discrimination, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, which establishes its prohibition.

THE DECISION THE COURT

The Government raised several objections regarding the admissibility of the applicant's complaints. She disputed the veracity of his identity due to the difference in the name and date of birth stated in the identity card and the application form. She also claimed that the applicant never asked the Commissariat for Refugees and Migration for permission to leave the center during the period of movement restrictions, nor did he complain to the Commissariat for Refugees and Migration about the conditions in the center.

The applicant claimed that at the time he arrived in Serbia, his family did not have personal documents, so he used a surname based on the origin of his ancestors. After his family received identity documents, they all used a surname based on his father's name, which he had given to the German authorities.

The court, considering the available information, concluded that the applicant's explanation regarding his identity was not credible, and no explanation was given regarding his actual date of birth. The applicant, apart from general and abstract remarks regarding the situation in the Krnjača Asylum Center during the implementation of the contested measure, did not provide any information about his situation at the given moment, nor did he present any arguments about the concrete impact of those measures on him personally. The court noted that there is no evidence in the case files that the applicant submitted a request for travel and that he was denied that opportunity.

For the stated reasons, the Court found that the applicant cannot be considered a victim in the sense of Article 34 of the Convention and rejected his application asratione personae incompatible with the Convention and its protocols, in the sense of Article 35, paragraph 3(a) of the Convention.