Case Law

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 asylum authority must revoke protection status based on changed circumstances, if it had granted such status based on wrong assumptions even if the applicant had not caused or contributed to this error. (Underlying Case of Mohammed Bilali v BFA C- 720/17)

14 August 2019 | Judicial Body: Austria: Supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) | Topic(s): Cancellation - Cessation clauses - Complementary forms of protection - Regional instruments - Statelessness | Countries: Algeria - Austria - Morocco

The case concerns the arrest of the applicants, nine unaccompanied minors, and their placement in different police stations in northern Greece and in the Diavata centre. The Court found violations of articles 3 on the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment (no violation on living conditions), violation of article 13 on the right to an effective remedy and a violation of article 5 (1) and (4) on the right to liberty and security, right to a speedy decision on the lawfulness of a detention measure.

28 February 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Effective remedy - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Prison or detention conditions - Right to liberty and security - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Greece - Iraq - Morocco - Syrian Arab Republic

Denial of humanitarian visa to child taken in under kafalah (fostering arrangement) by a Belgian-Moroccan couple

27 September 2018 | Judicial Body: UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) | Topic(s): Children's rights - Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) - Discrimination based on race, nationality, ethnicity - Family reunification | Countries: Belgium - Morocco

This case was referred to the Grand Chamber on 29/01/2018. The Grand Chamber took a final decision on 13 February 2020, see related documents for the Grand Chamber decision.

3 October 2017 | 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 - Expulsion - Refoulement | Countries: Côte d'Ivoire - Mali - Morocco - Spain