Case Law

Non-violation de l'article 5 - Droit à la liberté et à la sûreté (Article 5-1 - Arrestation ou détention régulières)

6 November 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 - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Belgium - Sri Lanka

Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (Tajikistan) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (Uzbekistan) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-f - Extradition)

23 October 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: Russian Federation - Tajikistan - Uzbekistan

The second subparagraph of Article 46(2) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection must be interpreted as meaning that subsidiary protection status, granted under legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not offer the ‘same rights and benefits as those offered by the refugee status under Union and national law’, within the meaning of that provision, so that a court of that Member State may not dismiss an appeal brought against a decision considering an application unfounded in relation to refugee status but granting subsidiary protection status as inadmissible on the grounds of insufficient interest on the part of the applicant in maintaining the proceedings where it is found that, under the applicable national legislation, those rights and benefits afforded by each international protection status are not genuinely identical. Such an appeal may not be dismissed as inadmissible, even if it is found that, having regard to the applicant’s particular circumstances, granting refugee status could not confer on him more rights and benefits than granting subsidiary protection status, in so far as the applicant does not, or has not yet, relied on rights which are granted by virtue of refugee status, but which are not granted, or are granted only to a limited extent, by virtue of subsidiary protection status.

18 October 2018 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Complementary forms of protection - Decision on admissibility - Effective remedy | Countries: Afghanistan - Slovenia

On 18 October, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its judgment on a preliminary reference submitted by the Slovenian Supreme Court, on the difference between refugee and subsidiary protection statuses. The need for a preliminary ruling arose in the context of asylum proceedings, where a minor national of Afghanistan was granted subsidiary protection status, following several unsuccessful legal challenges. When the issue was brought before the Supreme Court of Slovenia, the domestic judges decided to refer a question to the CJEU regarding the admissibility of the applicant’s appeal against his subsidiary protection status in the context of sufficient interest, according to Article 46 (2) of Directive 2013/32/EU. The question was centred on the difference in cessation and duration requirements of the two statuses, as well as the ancillary rights thereof. The Court first noted that the recitals of Directive 2011/95/EU indicate that EU legislators intended to establish an integral framework for all beneficiaries of international protection, save for objectively necessary exceptions for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status. After analysing the content of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Court stated that this article sets a requirement for a restrictive interpretation of any exception from the right to an effective remedy before a court, such as the one introduced by the aforementioned article of Directive 2013/32/EU. As such, for a subsidiary protection beneficiary’s action to be deemed inadmissible due to lack of sufficient interest, the rights and benefits granted must indeed be the same as those the applicant would enjoy if they held refugee status, even if the difference only encompasses ancillary rights. Moreover, a difference between the duration of the two statuses has to be regarded as difference in rights and benefits that justifies an admissible legal challenge. Lastly, any relevant assessment on the existence of different rights and benefits for international protection beneficiaries should not depend on the appellant’s individual situation, but rather on an overall assessment of national legislation. According to the Court’s restrictive interpretation, this is dictated by the text of Article 46 (2), as well as the need for the predictability of this legal provision, which would vary unacceptably according to each applicant’s personal circumstances. ELENA Weekly Legal Update - 19 October 2018

18 October 2018 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Complementary forms of protection - Decision on admissibility - Effective remedy | Countries: Afghanistan - Slovenia

France – Council of State rules in case concerning the execution of an ECtHR judgment by the National Court of Asylum On 3 October, the French Council of State ruled in a case concerning the rejection of the asylum application of a national of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), despite a decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) that considered him to be in a real risk of inhuman and degrading treatment upon return to his country. The applicant’s asylum request had been rejected both by the French Asylum Office and the National Court of Asylum. After two unsuccessful re-examination attempts, the domestic authorities issued a decision imposing an obligation on the applicant to leave the country. The applicant brought the case before the European Court of Human rights, where his claim of a possible violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), upon his return to the DRC, succeeded. The applicant requested another re-examination of his case, but that request was rejected by the French Asylum Office and, on appeal, by the CNDA. It was considered that the risk of inhuman and degrading treatment could not be considered as established. The applicant sought to annul that decision before the Council of State. The Court based its reasoning on Articles 41 and 46 of the ECHR, regarding consequences of violation of a Convention right and the execution of definitive judgments. It found that the execution of a judgment by the ECtHR entails both an obligation to remedy the consequences of the violation and to eliminate its source. In addition to that, the State has to ensure the applicant receives the sums decided by the ECtHR as just satisfaction. Moreover, a decision that declares a removal as violating Article 3 ECHR constitutes a novel element that would justify the re-examination of the case. During this re-examination, the domestic authorities should refrain from executing any removal measure, while ensuring that the applicant will be protected from inhuman and degrading treatment, by being granted subsidiary protection status according to French law. The Court annulled the decision and remitted the case back to the National Court of Asylum for reconsideration. Based on an unofficial translation by the ELENA Weekly Legal Update.

3 October 2018 | Judicial Body: France: Conseil d'Etat | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Human rights courts | Countries: Congo, Democratic Republic of the - France

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

Due to the authorities mishandling of procedures related to the granting of citizenship, the applicants had found themselves not only in a situation comparable to that in the Smirnova case, but also faced consequences affecting their social identity far more fundamentally as they had been deprived of any legal status in Russia. They had become stateless persons and remained so until 2010 and 2013 respectively. It had taken the authorities from 2007 until 2013 for the general problem to be solved. Since the authorities’ oversight had resulted in consequences for the applicants so severely affecting their private life, it amounted to an arbitrary interference. The authorities had thus failed to act diligently.

12 June 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Passports - Statelessness | Countries: Russian Federation

5 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 - Deportation / Forcible return - Effective remedy - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Prison or detention conditions | Countries: Kazakhstan - Turkey

5 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 - Effective remedy - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: Kazakhstan - Turkey

violations of Article 3: failure to effectively investigate allegations and because of its complicity in the CIA’s actions that had led to ill-treatment; 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 Articles 3, 5 and 8, violations of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), and Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 6 (abolition of the death penalty) because Romania had assisted in Mr Al Nashiri’s transfer from its territory in spite of a real risk that he could face a flagrant denial of justice and the death penalty.

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: Romania - Saudi Arabia - United States of America