Case Law

The Court found violations of articles 3, 5§1, and 5§5, when the applicant was kept in a cell measuring only 1.4 meters in pre-trial detention, placed in a metal cage during appellate proceedings, was not released immediately despite being granted refugee status in Sweden, and when the applicant had no available compensation under domestic law.

18 March 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Immigration Detention - Prison or detention conditions | Countries: Ukraine - Uzbekistan

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 | Topic(s): Immigration Detention | Countries: Hungary

Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations: – in providing that applications for international protection from third-country nationals or stateless persons who, arriving from Serbia, wish to access, in its territory, the international protection procedure, may be made only in the transit zones of Röszke and Tompa, while adopting a consistent and generalised administrative practice drastically limiting the number of applicants authorised to enter those transit zones daily; – in establishing a system of systematic detention of applicants for international protection in the transit zones of Röszke and Tompa, without observing the guarantees provided for in Article 24(3) and Article 43 of Directive 2013/32 and Articles 8, 9 and 11 of Directive 2013/33; – in allowing the removal of all third-country nationals staying illegally in its territory, with the exception of those of them who are suspected of having committed a criminal offence, without observing the procedures and safeguards laid down in Article 5, Article 6(1), Article 12(1) and Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/115; – in making the exercise by applicants for international protection who fall within the scope of Article 46(5) of Directive 2013/32 of their right to remain in its territory subject to conditions contrary to EU law.

17 December 2020 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Access to procedures - Illegal entry - Immigration Detention | Countries: Hungary

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 | 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

87 The Minister did not seek to justify PDWL’s continuing detention on any basis other than that a decision had been made under subs 189(1) of the Migration Act. For the reasons just given, subs 189(1) of the Migration Act can provide no justification for the continuing detention of PDWL. It follows that he is currently being unlawfully detained. That state of affairs should be immediately remedied. The appropriate remedy is an order that he be immediately released. I do not consider that it is necessary or useful to express that order in terms of the issue of a writ of habeas corpus, or an order in the nature of habeas corpus. As PDWL has been brought before the Court, it is unnecessary to direct that the Minister or any particular officer who is responsible for his detention release PDWL from detention. It is sufficient that I simply order his release forthwith.

17 March 2020 | Judicial Body: Australia: Federal Court | Topic(s): Habeas corpus - Immigration Detention - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Afghanistan - Australia

Appellants’ emergency motion for a stay of the district court’s April 5, 2019 and July 2, 2019 orders pending appeal (Dkt. Entry No. 10) is granted in part and denied in part.

22 July 2019 | Judicial Body: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | Topic(s): Immigration Detention | Countries: United States of America

PART B: The Court MODIFIES the injunction to find that the statutory prohibition at Immigration and Nationality Act § 235(b)(1)(B)(ii) against releasing on bond persons found to have a credible fear of persecution if returned to their country and awaiting a determination of their asylum application violates the U.S. Constitution; the Bond Hearing Class is constitutionally entitled to a bond hearing (under the conditions enumerated above) pending resolution of their asylum applications.

2 July 2019 | Judicial Body: United States District Courts | Topic(s): Immigration Detention | Countries: United States of America

(1) Matter of X-K-, 23 I&N Dec. 731 (BIA 2005), was wrongly decided and is overruled. (2) An alien who is transferred from expedited removal proceedings to full removal proceedings after establishing a credible fear of persecution or torture is ineligible for release on bond. Such an alien must be detained until his removal proceedings conclude, unless he is granted parole.

16 April 2019 | Judicial Body: United States Attorney-General | Topic(s): Immigration Detention | Countries: United States of America

With regard to the Bond Hearing Class, Defendant Executive Office for Immigration Review must, within 30 days of this Order: 1. Conduct bond hearings within seven days of a bond hearing request by a class member, and release any class member whose detention time exceeds that limit; 2. Place the burden of proof on Defendant Department of Homeland Security in those bond hearings to demonstrate why the class member should not be released on bond, parole, or other conditions; 3. Record the bond hearing and produce the recording or verbatim transcript of the hearing upon appeal; and 4. Produce a written decision with particularized determinations of individualized findings at the conclusion of the bond hearing

5 April 2019 | Judicial Body: United States District Courts | Topic(s): Immigration Detention | Countries: United States of America

27 February 2018 | Judicial Body: United States Supreme Court | Topic(s): Asylum-seekers - Immigration Detention | Countries: United States of America