Case Law

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,Joins to the merits the Government’s objection as to the first applicant’s victim status regarding her complaint under Article 3 of the Convention and rejects it; Declares the first applicant’s complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning her removal from Ukraine and the alleged lack of effective domestic remedies in that regard admissible and the applicants’ remaining complaints under Articles 3, 5 and 13 inadmissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention; Holds that there is no need to examine the first applicant’s complaint under Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention; Holds that the respondent State has failed to comply with its obligation under Article 34 of the Convention

15 September 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Non-refoulement - Rejection at border | Countries: Kyrgyzstan - Ukraine

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 | 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

Examination of the same matter under another procedure of international investigation or settlement; non-exhaustion of domestic remedies Risk of torture upon return to country of origin; non-refoulement

31 August 2021 | Judicial Body: UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) | Legal Instrument: 1984 Convention against Torture (CAT) | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Non-refoulement | Countries: China - Switzerland

6 July 2020 | Judicial Body: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | Topic(s): Asylum policy - Entry / Exit - Non-refoulement - Right to seek asylum | Countries: United States of America

The Court is requested to order the voidness of section 4 of the Prevention of Infiltration and Ensuring the Departure of Infiltrators from Israel 5775-2014 (Legislative Amendments and Temporary Provisions) 5775-2014 (hereinafter: the "Amending Law") that obliges foreign workers who entered Israel not through a border crossing (hereinafter: "Infiltrator Workers") and their employers to deposit in a special bank account a total amount at a rate of 36% of the worker's wages that will be paid to the worker only at the time of his departure from Israel (hereinafter: the "Deposit Scheme"). In short, the Petitioners argue that the Deposit Scheme, in general, or in the least some of its components, is unconstitutional and therefore should be voided.

23 April 2020 | Judicial Body: Israel: High Court of Justice | Topic(s): Administrative law - Asylum-seekers - Constitutional law - Illegal entry - Non-refoulement | Countries: Eritrea - Israel - Sudan

The panel affirmed the district court’s grant of a temporary restraining order and a subsequent grant of a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of a rule and presidential proclamation that, together, strip asylum eligibility from every migrant who crosses into the United States along the southern border of Mexico between designated ports of entry.

28 February 2020 | Judicial Body: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | Topic(s): Entry / Exit - Illegal entry - Non-refoulement - Rejection at border - Right to seek asylum | Countries: United States of America

20 February 2020 | Judicial Body: UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) | Legal Instrument: 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) | Topic(s): Atheist / Agnostic - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Non-refoulement - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) - Right to life | Countries: Afghanistan - Sweden

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