Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights

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

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

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 | Document type: Case Law | 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 case concerned a transgender man from Iran who had obtained asylum in Hungary but could not legally change his gender and name in that country. The Court noted that the domestic system for gender recognition had excluded the applicant simply because he did not have a birth certificate from Hungary, a change in the birth register being the way name and gender changes were legally recognised. The Court concluded that a fair balance had not been struck between the public interest and the applicant’s right to respect for his private life owing to the refusal to give him access to the legal gender recognition procedure.

16 July 2020 | 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): Birth Certificates - Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) - Persecution on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity - Right to family life | Countries: Hungary - Iran, Islamic Republic of

The French authorities had failed in their duties under domestic law. They were found responsible for the conditions in which the applicants had been living for several months: sleeping rough, without access to sanitary facilities, having no means of subsistence and constantly in fear of being attacked or robbed. The applicants had thus been victims of degrading treatment, showing a lack of respect for their dignity. The Court found that such living conditions, combined with the lack of an appropriate response from the French authorities and the fact that the domestic courts had systematically objected that the competent bodies lacked resources in the light of their status as single young men, had exceeded the threshold of severity for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention. The three applicants N.H., K.T. and A.J. had thus found themselves, through the fault of the French authorities, in a situation that was incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention.

2 July 2020 | 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 - Reception - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Afghanistan - France - Georgia - Iran, Islamic Republic of - Russian Federation

For these reasons, the court, unanimously: Decides to join the applications; Declares inadmissible: (i) the first and eighth applicants’ complaints that their detention under the domestic court’s detention orders did not comply with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention and (ii) the sixth, seventh and ninth applicants’ complaints that their detention under the domestic court’s detention orders prior to 10 August, 5 November and 22 May 2012 respectively did not comply with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention; Declares the remainder of the applications admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of second to ninth applicants, on account of lack of records of their arrest and detention prior to the issuance of detention orders in respect of them; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the second to fifth applicants on account of their detention under the domestic court’s detention orders in the absence of a decision ordering their expulsion; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the sixth applicant on account of his detention from 10 August to 17 October 2012, in respect of the seventh applicant on account of his detention from 5 to 23 November and in respect of the ninth applicant on account of his detention from 22 May to 17 October 2012; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in respect of the first and the sixth to ninth applicants.

18 June 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Asylum-seekers - Immigration Detention | Countries: Somalia - Ukraine

no violation of article 2 or 3 ECHR

16 June 2020 | 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): Credibility assessment - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Rejected asylum-seekers | Countries: Iran, Islamic Republic of - Switzerland

The applicant complained that the Slovakian authorities, having arrested him after he had crossed from Ukraine, had failed to inform him of the reasons for his arrest, in violation of Article 5 § 2 of the Convention. They had then returned him to Ukraine, where he had been detained in inadequate conditions in disregard of his alleged status as a minor, in breach of Article 3. He had been unable to participate effectively in the proceedings concerning his detention, and had eventually been returned to Afghanistan in the absence of an adequate assessment of the risks he had faced there, in breach of Article 3, Article 5 §§ 1, 2 and 4, and Article 13 of the Convention. Lastly, he alleged, under Article 34, that an NGO representative had been denied access to him in Ukraine, preventing him from lodging an application for an interim measure with the Court.

11 June 2020 | 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): Children's rights - Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Immigration Detention - Legal representation / Legal aid - Rejected asylum-seekers | Countries: Afghanistan - Slovakia - Ukraine

Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complained that if removed to Sudan he would be at risk of forced recruitment, persecution because he belonged to a non-Arab ethnic group from Darfur, and more generally, on account of the humanitarian situation in Sudan as a result of the conflict in Darfur. No violation of Article 3 – in the event of the applicant’s removal to Sudan No violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 3

2 June 2020 | 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): Effective remedy - Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Racial / Ethnic persecution - Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness | Countries: Netherlands - Sudan

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 | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Access to procedures - Decision on admissibility - Effective remedy - Jurisdiction - Visas | Countries: Belgium - Lebanon - Syrian Arab Republic