Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights

In the circumstances of a case such as that in the main proceedings, the relevant point in time for assessing the ‘minor’ status of the beneficiary of international protection pursuant to the third indent of Article 2(j) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, is the date on which his father makes an application for international protection pursuant to Article 6(1) 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, provided that the beneficiary of international protection has applied for that protection prior to reaching the age of majority and both family members in question are present in the same Member State prior to beneficiary of international protection reaching the age of majority. In accordance with the third indent of Article 2(j) of Directive 2011/95, the concept of ‘family members’ in respect of a father of a beneficiary of international protection is dependent solely on the three conditions, namely that the family already existed in the country of origin, that the family members of the beneficiary of international protection are present in the same Member State in relation to the application for international protection and that the beneficiary of international protection is an unmarried minor. The third indent of Article 2(j) of Directive 2011/95 does not require the resumption between the family members in question of family life within the meaning of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. If an unmarried minor pursuant to the third indent of Article 2(j) of Directive 2011/95 on reaching the age of majority expressly indicates in writing that he or she does not wish to maintain family unity, then the purpose of Article 23 of Directive 2011/95 cannot be achieved and the competent national authorities are not required to grant to family members the corresponding benefits under Articles 24 to 35 of that directive. The rights of family members pursuant to the third indent of Article 2(j) and Article 23(2) of Directive 2011/95 do not persist for an unlimited period of time. The right of family members pursuant to the third indent of Article 2(j) and Article 23(2) of Directive 2011/95 to claim the benefits referred to in Articles 24 to 35 of that directive persists after the beneficiary of subsidiary protection reaches the age of majority, for the duration of the period of validity of the residence permit granted to them in accordance with Article 24(2) of that directive.

18 March 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Family reunification | Countries: Afghanistan - Germany

The case concerned the applicants’ confinement in the Röszke transit zone on the border with Serbia in April-August 2017. The Court found, in particular, that the lack of food provided to R.R. and the conditions of stay of the other applicants (a pregnant woman and children) had led to a violation of Article 3. It also found that that the applicants’ stay in the transit zone had amounted to a de facto deprivation of liberty and that the absence of any formal decision of the authorities and any proceedings by which the lawfulness of their detention could have been decided speedily by a court had led to violations of Article 5.

2 March 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Immigration Detention | Countries: Hungary

The Court held that once the authorities had become aware of a credible suspicion that an individual had been trafficked, he or she should be assessed by a qualified person. Any decision to prosecute should follow such an assessment, and while the decision would not necessarily be binding on a prosecutor, the prosecutor would need to have clear reasons for reaching a different conclusion. In the case of both V.C.L. and A.N., the Court found that despite the existence of credible suspicion that they had been trafficked, neither the police nor the prosecution service had referred them to a competent authority for assessment; although both cases were subsequently reviewed by the prosecution service, it disagreed with the conclusion of the competent authority without giving clear reasons capable of undermining the competent authority’s conclusions; and the Court of Appeal limited itself to addressing whether the decision to prosecute had been an abuse of process. The Court therefore found that there had been a violation of Article 4 in both applicants’ cases. The Court found that, although the authorities had made some accommodations to the applicants after their guilty verdicts, the lack of any assessment of whether the applicants had been victims of trafficking may have prevented them from securing important evidence capable of helping their defence. As such the proceedings had not been fair, leading to a violation of Article 6 § 1.

16 February 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Survivors of trafficking / Persons at risk of trafficking - Trafficking in persons | Countries: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - Viet Nam

31 January 2021 | Publisher: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law Compilations/Analyses

Although the applicant, who had entered Greece illegally, had benefited from satisfactory conditions of detention, the review of the lawfulness of his detention had been inadequate

15 January 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: Greece - Türkiye

14 January 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Decision on admissibility | Countries: Russian Federation - Ukraine

31 December 2020 | Publisher: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law Compilations/Analyses

31 December 2020 | Publisher: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law Compilations/Analyses

31 December 2020 | Publisher: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law Compilations/Analyses

31 December 2020 | Publisher: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law Compilations/Analyses