Case Law

The Court found in particular that the Hungarian authorities had failed in their duty under Article 3 to assess the risks of the applicants not having proper access to asylum proceedings in Serbia or being subjected to chain-refoulement, which could have seen them being sent to Greece, where conditions in refugee camps had already been found to be in violation of Article 3. In a development of its case-law, it held that Article 5 was not applicable to the applicants’ case as there had been no de facto deprivation of liberty in the transit zone. Among other things, the Court found that the applicants had entered the transit zone of their own initiative and it had been possible in practice for them to return to Serbia, where they had not faced any danger to their life or health. Their fears of a lack of access to Serbia’s asylum system or of refoulement to Greece, as expressed under Article 3, had not been enough to make their stay in the transit zone involuntary.

21 November 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Rejection at border - Right to liberty and security - Safe third country - Transit | Countries: Bangladesh - Greece - Hungary - North Macedonia - Serbia - Türkiye

This case was referred to the Grand Chamber, see UNHCR's submission of 8 January 2018 and the final decision of 21 November 2019, including the partly dissenting opinion of Judge Bianku, joined by Judge Vučinić.

14 March 2017 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Appeal / Right to appeal - Effective remedy - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Prison or detention conditions - Refoulement - Right to liberty and security - Safe third country | Countries: Bangladesh - Hungary

22 September 2015 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Expulsion - Immigration Detention - Non-refoulement - Safe third country | Countries: Hungary - Serbia - Somalia

5 February 2015 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Decision on admissibility - Reception - Safe third country | Countries: Italy - Netherlands - Somalia

3 July 2014 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Asylum-seekers - Deportation / Forcible return - Expulsion - Non-refoulement - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Regional instruments - Safe third country | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria - Hungary - Serbia

5 December 2013 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Regional instruments - Safe third country | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria - Greece

6 June 2013 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Immigration Detention - Prison or detention conditions - Regional instruments - Safe third country | Countries: Austria - Hungary - Sudan

2 April 2013 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Countries: Italy - Netherlands - Somalia

2 October 2012 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Minorities - Proof of nationality - Refoulement - Religious discrimination - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) - Safe third country - Sikh | Countries: Afghanistan - Belgium

On 10 February 2012 the ECtHR applied the interim measure under Rule 39 and requested the Austrian Government to stay the expulsion of the applicants from Austria to Italy under the Dublin II Regulation, until further notice.

30 January 2012 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Countries: Austria - Italy - Russian Federation