Legal Information

Accordingly, the Court finds that the refusal to issue the applicant with an alien’s passport was taken without carrying out a balancing exercise and without ensuring that such a measure was justified and proportionate in his individual situation (see, mutatis mutandis, Pfeifer, cited above, § 57). That refusal was based on formalistic grounds, namely that he had not demonstrated that he was personally at risk of persecution and that he was not considered a beneficiary of asylum at that time, without adequate examination of the situation in his country of origin, as well as on the purported possibility of obtaining a Russian passport, without any assessment of whether that possibility was accessible to him in practice in view of his particular circumstances. 97. In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that it has not been demonstrated that the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of movement was necessary in a democratic society. 98. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.

16 June 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Travel documents | Countries: Lithuania

22 March 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Rejected asylum-seekers | Countries: Lithuania - Tajikistan

whether the applicants had actually submitted asylum applications at the border - the Court was satisfied that the applicants had submitted asylum applications, either orally or in writing, at the Lithuanian border on 16 April, 11 May and 22 May 2017. However, border guards had not accepted those applications and had not forwarded them to a competent authority for examination and status determination, as required by domestic law. Furthermore, border guards’ reports to their senior officers had not made any mention of the applicants’ wish to seek asylum on any of the three occasions – there were no references to the writing of “azul” on the decisions, nor to the written asylum application. There was also no indication either in those reports or in any other documents submitted to the Court that the border guards had attempted to clarify what was the reason – if not seeking asylum – for the applicants’ presence at the border without valid travel documents. Nor did it appear that there had been any assessment at all of whether it had been safe to return the applicants – a family with five very young children – to Belarus, which was not a Contracting Party to the European Convention on Human Rights and, according to publicly available information, could not be assumed to be a safe third country for Chechen asylum-seekers. As a result, the applicants had been returned to Belarus without there being any assessment of their asylum claims. It was therefore evident that measures which the Government had claimed constituted adequate safeguards against the arbitrary removal of asylum-seekers – such as the supervision of border guards by superior officers or the monitoring of borders by non-governmental organisations – had not been effective in the applicants’ case. Conclusion: violation (four votes to three).

11 December 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Rejection at border | Countries: Lithuania - Russian Federation

violations of Article 3 (prohibition of torture) of the European Convention on Human Rights, because of the Government’s failure to effectively investigate Mr Husayn’s allegations and because of its complicity in the CIA’s actions that had led to ill-treatment; and violations of Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Article 8 (right to respect for private life), and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), in conjunction with Article 3.

31 May 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Jurisdiction | Countries: Lithuania - Palestine, State of - United States of America

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

16 December 2008 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Criminal justice - Deportation / Forcible return - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Expulsion - Right to family life | Countries: Azerbaijan - Lithuania

31 August 2006 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Registration - Residence permits / Residency | Countries: Lithuania - Russian Federation

17 March 2005 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Decision on admissibility | Countries: Angola - Lithuania

24 July 2001 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Criminal justice - Prison or detention conditions | Countries: Lithuania

24 July 2001 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Criminal justice - Prison or detention conditions | Countries: Lithuania