Immigration law / Expulsion

The Court had therefore to examine whether any effective guarantees existed that protected the applicants against arbitrary refoulement by the Bulgarian authorities to China, be it direct or indirect. No destination country had been indicated in the initial decisions for the applicants’ repatriation or in the expulsion decisions. According to the Supreme Administrative Court, the determination of such a country and the assessment of any risk the applicants would face if returned to China fell to be carried out in the process of implementation of the expulsion decisions. However, such an approach offered no guarantees that the Bulgarian authorities would examine with the necessary rigour the question of the risk the applicants would face if returned to the country they had fled. It was unclear by reference to what standards and on the basis of what information the authorities would determine, if at all, the relevant risk. Lastly, there was no indication as to whether, if the authorities chose to send the applicants to a third country, they would properly examine whether they would in turn be sent from there to China without due consideration for the risk of ill‑treatment and even death. In sum, there were no effective guarantees, in the process of implementation of the repatriation or the expulsion decisions against the applicants, that they would not be sent back to China.

20 February 2020 | 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 - Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Uighur | Countries: Bulgaria - China

The case concerned the immediate return to Morocco of two nationals of Mali and Côte d’Ivoire who on 13 August 2014 attempted to enter Spanish territory in an unauthorised manner by climbing the fences surrounding the Spanish enclave of Melilla on the North African coast. The Court considered that the applicants had in fact placed themselves in an unlawful situation when they had deliberately attempted to enter Spain on 13 August 2014 by crossing the Melilla border protection structures as part of a large group and at an unauthorised location, taking advantage of the group’s large numbers and using force. They had thus chosen not to use the legal procedures which existed in order to enter Spanish territory lawfully. Consequently, the Court considered that the lack of individual removal decisions could be attributed to the fact that the applicants – assuming that they had wished to assert rights under the Convention – had not made use of the official entry procedures existing for that purpose, and that it had thus been a consequence of their own conduct. In so far as it had found that the lack of an individualised procedure for their removal had been the consequence of the applicants’ own conduct, the Court could not hold the respondent State responsible for the lack of a legal remedy in Melilla enabling them to challenge that removal.

13 February 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Effective remedy - Expulsion - Non-refoulement - Rejection at border | Countries: Côte d'Ivoire - Mali - Morocco - Spain

Risque de torture ou de peines ou traitements cruels, inhumains ou dégradants en cas d’expulsion (non-refoulement)

2 January 2020 | Judicial Body: UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) | Topic(s): Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Indigenous persons - Minorities - Non-refoulement | Countries: Chile - Switzerland

The Court found in particular that the Hungarian authorities had failed in their duty under Article 3 to assess the risks of the applicants not having proper access to asylum proceedings in Serbia or being subjected to chain-refoulement, which could have seen them being sent to Greece, where conditions in refugee camps had already been found to be in violation of Article 3. In a development of its case-law, it held that Article 5 was not applicable to the applicants’ case as there had been no de facto deprivation of liberty in the transit zone. Among other things, the Court found that the applicants had entered the transit zone of their own initiative and it had been possible in practice for them to return to Serbia, where they had not faced any danger to their life or health. Their fears of a lack of access to Serbia’s asylum system or of refoulement to Greece, as expressed under Article 3, had not been enough to make their stay in the transit zone involuntary.

21 November 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Rejection at border - Right to liberty and security - Safe third country - Transit | Countries: Bangladesh - Greece - Hungary - North Macedonia - Serbia - Türkiye

Art 2 • Art 3 • Expulsion • Sunni Muslim killed shortly after removal to Iraq where he had previously suffered life-threatening incidents • Inadequate assessment of risks with regard to tensions between Shia and Sunni Muslims

14 November 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Non-refoulement - Right to life | Countries: Finland - Iraq

The FAC suspended the transfer of a Syrian refugee, who allegedly suffered ill-treatment by Croatian authorities, to Croatia under the Dublin III Regulation.

12 July 2019 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Topic(s): Asylum-seekers - Expulsion - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Switzerland - Syrian Arab Republic

31 January 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Asylum policy - Expulsion | Countries: Georgia - Russian Federation

In the instant case, the Applicant maintains that he is of Tanzanian nationality, which is being contested by the Respondent state. ln the circumstance, it is necessary to establish on whom lies the burden of proof. lt is the opinion of the Court that, since the Respondent State is contesting the Applicant's nationality held since his birth on the basis of legal documents established by the Respondent State itself, the burden is on the Respondent state to prove the contrary.

22 August 2018 | Judicial Body: African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights | Topic(s): Burden of proof - Effective remedy - Expulsion - Withdrawal of nationality | Countries: Tanzania, United Republic of

violation of articles 3 and 5

21 June 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 - Expulsion - False documents - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Greece - Syrian Arab Republic