Case Law

The applicant complained that the Slovakian authorities, having arrested him after he had crossed from Ukraine, had failed to inform him of the reasons for his arrest, in violation of Article 5 § 2 of the Convention. They had then returned him to Ukraine, where he had been detained in inadequate conditions in disregard of his alleged status as a minor, in breach of Article 3. He had been unable to participate effectively in the proceedings concerning his detention, and had eventually been returned to Afghanistan in the absence of an adequate assessment of the risks he had faced there, in breach of Article 3, Article 5 §§ 1, 2 and 4, and Article 13 of the Convention. Lastly, he alleged, under Article 34, that an NGO representative had been denied access to him in Ukraine, preventing him from lodging an application for an interim measure with the Court.

11 June 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Children's rights - Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Immigration Detention - Legal representation / Legal aid - Rejected asylum-seekers | Countries: Afghanistan - Slovakia - Ukraine

The legal representative of the asylum seeker from Afghanistan refused to participate in the « Dublin » hearing due to Covid-19. The hearing had been conducted without any legal representative and the SEM decided on the asylum seeker’s transfer to Germany. The FAC concludes that the absence of a legal representative was due to justifiable good cause. Thus, the hearing has no effect.

4 May 2020 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Topic(s): COVID-19 - Legal representation / Legal aid - Refugee / Asylum law | Countries: Afghanistan - Switzerland

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 | 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

This case presents us with a simple question: do non-citizens subject to expedited removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1228 have a statutory right to counsel in reasonable fear proceedings before immigration judges? The answer, based on the plain language of § 1228, is yes.

20 August 2019 | Judicial Body: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | Topic(s): Legal representation / Legal aid - Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness - Well-founded fear of persecution | Countries: Mexico - United States of America

27 January 2017 | Judicial Body: UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Effective remedy - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Legal representation / Legal aid | Countries: Uzbekistan

5 December 2016 | Judicial Body: UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) | Topic(s): Juvenile justice system - Legal representation / Legal aid - Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness | Countries: Russian Federation

18 April 2016 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Supreme Court | Topic(s): Immigration law - Legal representation / Legal aid | Countries: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

15 December 2014 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) | Topic(s): Legal representation / Legal aid | Countries: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland