CASE OF Z.A. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 61411/15, 61420/15, 61427/15 and 3028/16) (Grand Chamber)
The Court found in particular that Article 5 was applicable to the applicants’ case as their presence in the transit zone had not been voluntary; they had been left to their own devices for the entire period of their stay, which had lasted between five and 19 months depending on the applicant; there had been no realistic prospect of them being able to leave the zone; and the authorities had not adhered to the domestic legislation on the reception of asylum-seekers. Given the absence of a legal basis for their being confined to the transit zone, a situation made worse by them being impeded in accessing the asylum system, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of the applicants’ rights protected by Article 5 § 1. The conditions the applicants had lived in had also been appalling: they had had to sleep in the transit zone, a busy and constantly lit area, with no access to washing or cooking facilities. There had thus also been a breach of Article 3 as their treatment had been degrading. 21 November 2019 | 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): Airports - Arbitrary arrest and detention - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Prison or detention conditions - Right to liberty and security - Transit | Countries: Iraq - Palestine, State of - Russian Federation - Somalia - Syrian Arab Republic |
AFFAIRE KAAK ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE (Requête no 34215/16)
The case concerned the conditions of detention of Syrian, Afghan and Palestinian nationals in the “hotspots” of Vial and Souda (Greece), and the lawfulness of their detention in those camps. The Court considered that the authorities had done all that could reasonably be expected of them in the Vial camp to meet the obligation to provide care and protection to unaccompanied minors. The other applicants had been transferred immediately – or within ten days – from the Vial camp to the Souda camp. The Court also held that the conditions of detention in the Souda camp did not amount to inhuman or degrading treatment. The Court reiterated its previous finding that a period of one month’s detention in the Vial camp should not be considered excessive, given the time needed to comply with the relevant administrative formalities. In addition, the length of the applicants’ detention once they had expressed their wish to apply for asylum had been relatively short. In contrast, the applicants, who did not have legal assistance, had not been able to understand the content of the information brochure; in particular, they were unable to understand the material relating to the various appeal possibilities available under domestic law. 3 October 2019 | 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 - Arbitrary arrest and detention - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Legal representation / Legal aid - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Afghanistan - Greece - Palestine, State of - Syrian Arab Republic |
M.M. c. Bulgarie
8 June 2017 | 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): Deportation / Forcible return - Immigration Detention - National security / Public order - Right to liberty and security - Statelessness | Countries: Bulgaria - Palestine, State of |
Z.A. and others v. Russia
This case was referred to the Grand Chamber, decision was issued on 21 November 2019 confirming the Chamber Judgment 28 March 2017 | 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): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Immigration Detention - Prison or detention conditions - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Iraq - Palestine, State of - Russian Federation - Somalia - Syrian Arab Republic |
Asalya v. Turkey
15 April 2014 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Effective remedy - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Prison or detention conditions - Right to family life - Right to liberty and security - Right to life | Countries: Palestine, State of - Türkiye |
A.A. c. Grèce
22 July 2010 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Asylum-seekers - Effective remedy - Exhaustion of domestic remedies - Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Immigration Detention - Legal representation / Legal aid - Palestinian - Prison or detention conditions - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Greece - Palestine, State of |
Al-Agha c. Roumanie
12 January 2010 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Immigration Detention - National security / Public order - Prison or detention conditions - Refugees - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Palestine, State of - Romania |
MH v. Sweden
21 October 2008 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Asylum-seekers - Criminal justice - Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Persecution based on political opinion - Right to justice - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Palestine, State of - Sweden |