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

The present case concerns refusal of border guards to receive the applicants’ asylum applications and summary removal to a third country, with a risk of refoulement to and ill-treatment in the country origin.

30 June 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Rejection at border | Countries: Belarus - Poland - Russian Federation

The present case concerns refusal of border guards to receive the applicants’ asylum applications and summary removal to a third country, with a risk of refoulement to and ill-treatment in the country origin.

30 June 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Rejection at border | Countries: Belarus - Poland - Russian Federation

The present case concerns refusal of border guards to receive the applicants’ asylum applications and summary removal to a third country, with a risk of refoulement to and ill-treatment in the country origin.

30 June 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Rejection at border | Countries: Belarus - Poland - Russian Federation

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

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 Court found in particular that the Hungarian authorities had failed in their duty under Article 3 to assess the risks of the applicants not having proper access to asylum proceedings in Serbia or being subjected to chain-refoulement, which could have seen them being sent to Greece, where conditions in refugee camps had already been found to be in violation of Article 3. In a development of its case-law, it held that Article 5 was not applicable to the applicants’ case as there had been no de facto deprivation of liberty in the transit zone. Among other things, the Court found that the applicants had entered the transit zone of their own initiative and it had been possible in practice for them to return to Serbia, where they had not faced any danger to their life or health. Their fears of a lack of access to Serbia’s asylum system or of refoulement to Greece, as expressed under Article 3, had not been enough to make their stay in the transit zone involuntary.

21 November 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Rejection at border - Right to liberty and security - Safe third country - Transit | Countries: Bangladesh - Greece - Hungary - North Macedonia - Serbia - Türkiye

whether the applicants had actually submitted asylum applications at the border - the Court was satisfied that the applicants had submitted asylum applications, either orally or in writing, at the Lithuanian border on 16 April, 11 May and 22 May 2017. However, border guards had not accepted those applications and had not forwarded them to a competent authority for examination and status determination, as required by domestic law. Furthermore, border guards’ reports to their senior officers had not made any mention of the applicants’ wish to seek asylum on any of the three occasions – there were no references to the writing of “azul” on the decisions, nor to the written asylum application. There was also no indication either in those reports or in any other documents submitted to the Court that the border guards had attempted to clarify what was the reason – if not seeking asylum – for the applicants’ presence at the border without valid travel documents. Nor did it appear that there had been any assessment at all of whether it had been safe to return the applicants – a family with five very young children – to Belarus, which was not a Contracting Party to the European Convention on Human Rights and, according to publicly available information, could not be assumed to be a safe third country for Chechen asylum-seekers. As a result, the applicants had been returned to Belarus without there being any assessment of their asylum claims. It was therefore evident that measures which the Government had claimed constituted adequate safeguards against the arbitrary removal of asylum-seekers – such as the supervision of border guards by superior officers or the monitoring of borders by non-governmental organisations – had not been effective in the applicants’ case. Conclusion: violation (four votes to three).

11 December 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Rejection at border | Countries: Lithuania - Russian Federation

24 February 2015 | Judicial Body: Italy: Italian Supreme Court (Corte Suprema di Cassazione) | Topic(s): Access to procedures - Border crossers - Expulsion - Illegal immigrants / Undocumented migrants - Immigration Detention - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Regional instruments - Rejection at border - Rescue at sea / Interception at sea | Countries: Italy - Nigeria