Case Law

The case concerned the applicant’s removal to Sudan by the Belgian authorities in spite of a court decision ordering the suspension of the measure. The Court found in particular that on account of procedural defects attributable to the Belgian authorities prior to the applicant’s removal to Sudan, he had been prevented from pursuing the asylum application that he had lodged in Belgium and the Belgian authorities had not sufficiently assessed the real risks that he faced in Sudan. In addition, by deporting the applicant in spite of the court order to suspend the measure, the authorities had rendered ineffective the applicant’s successful appeal.

27 October 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Effective remedy - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Suspensive effect | Countries: Belgium - Sudan

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 | 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 case concerned the immediate return to Morocco of two nationals of Mali and Côte d’Ivoire who on 13 August 2014 attempted to enter Spanish territory in an unauthorised manner by climbing the fences surrounding the Spanish enclave of Melilla on the North African coast. The Court considered that the applicants had in fact placed themselves in an unlawful situation when they had deliberately attempted to enter Spain on 13 August 2014 by crossing the Melilla border protection structures as part of a large group and at an unauthorised location, taking advantage of the group’s large numbers and using force. They had thus chosen not to use the legal procedures which existed in order to enter Spanish territory lawfully. Consequently, the Court considered that the lack of individual removal decisions could be attributed to the fact that the applicants – assuming that they had wished to assert rights under the Convention – had not made use of the official entry procedures existing for that purpose, and that it had thus been a consequence of their own conduct. In so far as it had found that the lack of an individualised procedure for their removal had been the consequence of the applicants’ own conduct, the Court could not hold the respondent State responsible for the lack of a legal remedy in Melilla enabling them to challenge that removal.

13 February 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Effective remedy - Expulsion - Non-refoulement - Rejection at border | Countries: Côte d'Ivoire - Mali - Morocco - Spain

The Court further notes that the move in international law towards adopting alternative measures to the administrative detention of migrants appears to concern not only children, but also their parents. violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the failure of both the Istanbul Magistrates’ Court and the Constitutional Court to conduct a review of the lawfulness of their detention in an effective and speedy manner. The Court notes, once again, that the review mechanism set out under Law no. 6458 appears to be wholly ineffective in a case, such as the present one, where the detention of a minor in the immigration context is not based on an administrative decision.

17 October 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Effective remedy - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Prison or detention conditions - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Russian Federation - Türkiye

The Court held that "- that O.D.’s removal to Syria would amount to a violation of Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights - that there had been a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), read in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3. The Court found, in particular, that in view of the overall situation in Syria and the individual risk faced by the applicant it could not be established that he could safely return to Syria. The Court also found that the applicant had not had access to an effective remedy, noting that his request for a stay of execution of the expulsion order had been rejected on the grounds that he posed a threat to national security, and that the proceedings relating to the application for refugee status or humanitarian status had not been aimed at reviewing the lawfulness of the expulsion order or its effects in relation to the complaints concerning the right to life and the right not to be subjected to ill-treatment. ..."

10 October 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Effective remedy - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Right to life | Countries: Bulgaria - Syrian Arab Republic

The second subparagraph of Article 46(2) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that subsidiary protection status, granted under legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not offer the ‘same rights and benefits as those offered by the refugee status under Union and national law’, within the meaning of that provision, so that a court of that Member State may not dismiss an appeal brought against a decision considering an application unfounded in relation to refugee status but granting subsidiary protection status as inadmissible on the grounds of insufficient interest on the part of the applicant in maintaining the proceedings where it is found that, under the applicable national legislation, those rights and benefits afforded by each international protection status are not genuinely identical. Such an appeal may not be dismissed as inadmissible, even if it is found that, having regard to the applicant’s particular circumstances, granting refugee status could not confer on him more rights and benefits than granting subsidiary protection status, in so far as the applicant does not, or has not yet, relied on rights which are granted by virtue of refugee status, but which are not granted, or are granted only to a limited extent, by virtue of subsidiary protection status.

18 October 2018 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Complementary forms of protection - Decision on admissibility - Effective remedy | Countries: Afghanistan - Slovenia

On 18 October, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its judgment on a preliminary reference submitted by the Slovenian Supreme Court, on the difference between refugee and subsidiary protection statuses. The need for a preliminary ruling arose in the context of asylum proceedings, where a minor national of Afghanistan was granted subsidiary protection status, following several unsuccessful legal challenges. When the issue was brought before the Supreme Court of Slovenia, the domestic judges decided to refer a question to the CJEU regarding the admissibility of the applicant’s appeal against his subsidiary protection status in the context of sufficient interest, according to Article 46 (2) of Directive 2013/32/EU. The question was centred on the difference in cessation and duration requirements of the two statuses, as well as the ancillary rights thereof. The Court first noted that the recitals of Directive 2011/95/EU indicate that EU legislators intended to establish an integral framework for all beneficiaries of international protection, save for objectively necessary exceptions for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status. After analysing the content of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Court stated that this article sets a requirement for a restrictive interpretation of any exception from the right to an effective remedy before a court, such as the one introduced by the aforementioned article of Directive 2013/32/EU. As such, for a subsidiary protection beneficiary’s action to be deemed inadmissible due to lack of sufficient interest, the rights and benefits granted must indeed be the same as those the applicant would enjoy if they held refugee status, even if the difference only encompasses ancillary rights. Moreover, a difference between the duration of the two statuses has to be regarded as difference in rights and benefits that justifies an admissible legal challenge. Lastly, any relevant assessment on the existence of different rights and benefits for international protection beneficiaries should not depend on the appellant’s individual situation, but rather on an overall assessment of national legislation. According to the Court’s restrictive interpretation, this is dictated by the text of Article 46 (2), as well as the need for the predictability of this legal provision, which would vary unacceptably according to each applicant’s personal circumstances. ELENA Weekly Legal Update - 19 October 2018

18 October 2018 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Complementary forms of protection - Decision on admissibility - Effective remedy | Countries: Afghanistan - Slovenia

5 June 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Deportation / Forcible return - Effective remedy - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Prison or detention conditions | Countries: Kazakhstan - Türkiye

5 June 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Effective remedy - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: Kazakhstan - Türkiye