Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights
The Court is currently made up of 47 judges, one in principle for every State signed up to the Convention. They are elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and serve for six years. Judges sit on the Court as individuals and do not represent their country. Website: www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home
- Case Law 6
|
AFFAIRE R.M. ET AUTRES c. POLOGNE (Requête no 11247/18)
9 February 2023 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Children's rights - Expulsion - Right to liberty and security - Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness | Countries: Poland - Russian Federation |
|
CASE OF T.Z. AND OTHERS v. POLAND
(Application no. 41764/17)
The present case concerns numerous refusals of the Polish authorities to examine the applicants’ requests for international protection, their denied entry to Poland and return to Belarus 13 October 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): Effective remedy - Entry / Exit - Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: Belarus - Poland - Russian Federation |
|
CASE OF T.Z. AND OTHERS v. POLAND
(Application no. 41764/17)
The present case concerns numerous refusals of the Polish authorities to examine the applicants’ requests for international protection, their denied entry to Poland and return to Belarus. 13 October 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 | Countries: Poland - Russian Federation |
|
CASE OF M.K. AND OTHERS v. POLAND
(Applications nos. 40503/17, 42902/17 and 43643/17)
The applicants alleged that the Polish authorities had repeatedly denied them the possibility of lodging an application for international protection, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. They also invoked Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, alleging that their situation had not been reviewed individually and that they were victims of a general policy that was followed by the Polish authorities with the aim of reducing the number of asylum applications registered in Poland. The applicants stated that, under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, lodging an appeal against a decision denying someone entry into Poland did not constitute an effective remedy as it would not be examined quickly enough, would have no suspensive effect and would not be examined by an independent body. Moreover, the applicants complained that the Polish authorities had not complied with the interim measures granted to them by the Court, in breach of Article 34 of the Convention. 23 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): Access to procedures - Effective remedy - Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: Belarus - Poland - Russian Federation |
|
AFFAIRE BILALOVA ET AUTRES c. POLOGNE
(Requête no 23685/14)
Relying in particular on Article 5 § 1 (f) (right to liberty and security), the applicants complained about their placement and retention in the closed centre for aliens, alleging, inter alia, that they were illegal. Violation of Article 5 § 1 f) – in respect of the applicant children, concerning their retention in the closed centre 26 March 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 - Rejected asylum-seekers - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Germany - Poland - Russian Federation |
|
Shamsa c. Pologne
The detention of the applicants in the transit zone beyond the deadline for their expulsion was therefore declared contrary to Art. 5 para. 1 of the ECHR. The judgment is only available in French. 27 November 2003 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Expulsion | Countries: Libya - Poland |
