France

From the press release (attached): The Court held that the presumption of equivalent protection applied in Mr Moldovan’s case in so far as the two conditions for its application, namely the absence of any margin of manoeuvre on the part of the national authorities and the deployment of the full potential of the supervisory mechanism provided for by European Union (EU) law, were met. The Court therefore confined itself to ascertaining whether or not the protection of the rights guaranteed by the Convention had been manifestly deficient in the present case, such that this presumption was rebutted. To that end it sought to determine whether there had been a sufficiently solid factual basis requiring the executing judicial authority to find that execution of the EAW would entail a real and individual risk to the applicant of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 on account of his conditions of detention in Romania. In Mr. Bivolaru's case: The Court considered that the executing judicial authority, following a full and in-depth examination of the applicant’s individual situation which demonstrated that it had taken account of his refugee status, had not had a sufficiently solid factual basis to establish the existence of a real risk of a breach of Article 3 of the Convention and to refuse execution of the EAW on that ground. The Court also considered that the description of conditions of detention in Romanian prisons provided by the applicant to the executing judicial authority in support of his request not to execute the EAW had not been sufficiently detailed or substantiated to constitute prima facie evidence of a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 in the event of his surrender to the Romanian authorities. In the Court’s view, the executing judicial authority had not been obliged to request additional information from the Romanian authorities. Accordingly, it held that there had not been a solid factual basis for the executing judicial authority to establish the existence of a real risk of a breach of Article 3 of the Convention and to refuse execution of the EAW on those grounds.

25 March 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: France - Romania

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

violation of article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment).

28 February 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Refugee camps - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Afghanistan - France - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

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 | Document type: Case Law | 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

26 September 2017 | Judicial Body: Belgium: Conseil du Contentieux des Etrangers | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Non-refoulement | Countries: Belgium - France - Italy - Sudan

26 September 2017 | Judicial Body: Belgium: Conseil du Contentieux des Etrangers | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Non-refoulement | Countries: Belgium - France - Italy - Sudan

26 September 2017 | Judicial Body: Belgium: Conseil du Contentieux des Etrangers | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Non-refoulement | Countries: Belgium - France - Italy - Sudan

26 September 2017 | Judicial Body: Belgium: Conseil du Contentieux des Etrangers | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Non-refoulement | Countries: Belgium - France - Italy - Sudan

7 April 2017 | Publisher: Council of Europe: Committee for the Prevention of Torture | Document type: Country Reports

7 April 2017 | Publisher: Council of Europe: Committee for the Prevention of Torture | Document type: Country Reports