Administration of justice / Access to procedures

The applicants alleged that the Polish authorities had repeatedly denied them the possibility of lodging an application for international protection, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. They also invoked Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, alleging that their situation had not been reviewed individually and that they were victims of a general policy that was followed by the Polish authorities with the aim of reducing the number of asylum applications registered in Poland. The applicants stated that, under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, lodging an appeal against a decision denying someone entry into Poland did not constitute an effective remedy as it would not be examined quickly enough, would have no suspensive effect and would not be examined by an independent body. Moreover, the applicants complained that the Polish authorities had not complied with the interim measures granted to them by the Court, in breach of Article 34 of the Convention.

23 July 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Access to procedures - Effective remedy - Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: Belarus - Poland - Russian Federation

The case mainly concerns the applicants’ complaints, under Article 5 of the Convention, that their arrest and detention as migrants in an irregular situation were unlawful, and that they were not informed of the reasons for their arrest and had no effective access to the procedure to challenge the lawfulness of their arrest and detention. It also concerns the eighth applicant’s complaint under Article 3 that she, a minor at the time, was not provided with adequate care in detention in connection with her pregnancy and the miscarriage she suffered.

16 July 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Access to procedures - Arbitrary arrest and detention - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Eritrea - Guinea - Somalia - Ukraine

The Court reiterated that Article 1 (obligation to respect human rights) of the European Convention limited its scope to persons within the jurisdiction of the States Parties to the Convention. In the present case, it noted that the applicants were not within Belgium’s jurisdiction in respect of the circumstances complained of under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. The Court also considered that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was inapplicable in the present case. The entry to Belgian territory which would have resulted from the visas being issued did not engage a “civil” right within the meaning of Article 6 § 1. Lastly, the Court noted that this conclusion did not prejudice the endeavours being made by the States Parties to facilitate access to asylum procedures through their embassies and/or consular representations.

5 May 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Access to procedures - Decision on admissibility - Effective remedy - Jurisdiction - Visas | Countries: Belgium - Lebanon - Syrian Arab Republic

The applicants alleged that their expulsion to Ukraine had been collective in nature and that they had not had an effective remedy in respect of it. In particular, they alleged that the State authorities had not carried out an individual assessment and examination of their cases and had denied them access to the asylum procedure.

24 March 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Access to procedures - Expulsion | Countries: Afghanistan - Slovakia

The case concerned the conditions of detention of Syrian, Afghan and Palestinian nationals in the “hotspots” of Vial and Souda (Greece), and the lawfulness of their detention in those camps. The Court considered that the authorities had done all that could reasonably be expected of them in the Vial camp to meet the obligation to provide care and protection to unaccompanied minors. The other applicants had been transferred immediately – or within ten days – from the Vial camp to the Souda camp. The Court also held that the conditions of detention in the Souda camp did not amount to inhuman or degrading treatment. The Court reiterated its previous finding that a period of one month’s detention in the Vial camp should not be considered excessive, given the time needed to comply with the relevant administrative formalities. In addition, the length of the applicants’ detention once they had expressed their wish to apply for asylum had been relatively short. In contrast, the applicants, who did not have legal assistance, had not been able to understand the content of the information brochure; in particular, they were unable to understand the material relating to the various appeal possibilities available under domestic law.

3 October 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Access to procedures - Arbitrary arrest and detention - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Legal representation / Legal aid - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Afghanistan - Greece - Palestine, State of - Syrian Arab Republic

12 January 2017 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Access to procedures - Border controls - Effective remedy - Grounds for persecution - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Djibouti - Eritrea - Ukraine

24 March 2016 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Access to procedures - Illegal entry | Countries: Afghanistan - Greece

10 February 2015 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Access to procedures - Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Prison or detention conditions - Terrorism | Countries: Afghanistan - Romania

See further Committee of Minister (CM) decisions of September 2016 and June 2017 available at: http://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=CM/Del/Dec(2016)1265/H46-16 ; http://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=CM/Del/Dec(2017)1288/H46-17E) and Italian authorities submission of Sept. 2017 ( available at: http://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=090000168075968c); the Communication by Italian Government Action plan (https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=090000168091f978 ); and the decision by the Committee of Ministers of 5 March 2020 (available at: https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=09000016809cc879)

21 October 2014 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Access to procedures - Effective remedy - Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Non-refoulement - Refoulement - Rescue at sea / Interception at sea | Countries: Afghanistan - Eritrea - Greece - Italy - Sudan