Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights

1. The case concerns removal of the applicant to Tajikistan, in breach of an interim measure issued by the Court, and the conditions and lawfulness of the applicant’s detention pending removal. Articles 3, 5 and 34 of the Convention are, principally, invoked.

29 March 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Expulsion - Extradition - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: Russian Federation - Tajikistan

22 March 2022 | 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): Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Rejected asylum-seekers | Countries: Lithuania - Tajikistan

Relying on Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition on inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants complain that their expulsion to Syria would put them at grave physical risk. Some of the applicants also complain under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) that they had no effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Articles 2 and 3 that their detention pending removal was arbitrary and the examination of their complaints against detention orders was not speedy.

14 September 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Effective remedy - Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Non-refoulement - Right to life | Countries: Russian Federation - Syrian Arab Republic

The court unanimously: Declares the application admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicants being denied access to the asylum procedure and exposed to a risk of inhuman and degrading treatment and torture in Syria; Holds that it is not necessary to examine whether there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ treatment by the Polish authorities during border checks; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention; Holds that Poland has failed to discharge its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention; Decides to continue to indicate to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that it is desirable in the interests of the proper conduct of the proceedings not to remove the applicants to Belarus – if and when they present themselves at the Polish border crossing – until such time as the present judgment becomes final, or until a further decision is made; Holds (a) that the respondent State is to pay to each of the three applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros), to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

8 July 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: Poland - Syrian Arab Republic

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

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

The Court considered that criminalisation of homosexual acts was not sufficient to render return contrary to the Convention. The Court found, however, that the Swiss authorities had failed to adequately assess the risk of ill-treatment for the first applicant as a homosexual person in the Gambia and the availability of State protection against ill-treatment from non-State actors. Several independent authorities noted that the Gambian authorities were unwilling to provide protection for LGBTI people.

17 November 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): Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) | Countries: Gambia - Switzerland

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

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