Case Law

The applicants complained of the deficiencies in the proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention

15 December 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention | Countries: Russian Federation

1. The case concerns removal of the applicant to Tajikistan, in breach of an interim measure issued by the Court, and the conditions and lawfulness of the applicant’s detention pending removal. Articles 3, 5 and 34 of the Convention are, principally, invoked.

29 March 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Expulsion - Extradition - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: Russian Federation - Tajikistan

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

The case mainly concerns the applicants’ complaints, under Article 5 of the Convention, that their arrest and detention as migrants in an irregular situation were unlawful, and that they were not informed of the reasons for their arrest and had no effective access to the procedure to challenge the lawfulness of their arrest and detention. It also concerns the eighth applicant’s complaint under Article 3 that she, a minor at the time, was not provided with adequate care in detention in connection with her pregnancy and the miscarriage she suffered.

16 July 2020 | 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 - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Eritrea - Guinea - Somalia - Ukraine

The Court had therefore to examine whether any effective guarantees existed that protected the applicants against arbitrary refoulement by the Bulgarian authorities to China, be it direct or indirect. No destination country had been indicated in the initial decisions for the applicants’ repatriation or in the expulsion decisions. According to the Supreme Administrative Court, the determination of such a country and the assessment of any risk the applicants would face if returned to China fell to be carried out in the process of implementation of the expulsion decisions. However, such an approach offered no guarantees that the Bulgarian authorities would examine with the necessary rigour the question of the risk the applicants would face if returned to the country they had fled. It was unclear by reference to what standards and on the basis of what information the authorities would determine, if at all, the relevant risk. Lastly, there was no indication as to whether, if the authorities chose to send the applicants to a third country, they would properly examine whether they would in turn be sent from there to China without due consideration for the risk of ill‑treatment and even death. In sum, there were no effective guarantees, in the process of implementation of the repatriation or the expulsion decisions against the applicants, that they would not be sent back to China.

20 February 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Uighur | Countries: Bulgaria - China

The case refers to the prolonged detention suffered by two asylum seekers during the refugee status recognition procedure that was being substantiated before COMAR. They were reportedly placed at the disposal of the National Migration Institute and kept in prolonged detention for a long period of time. The Working Group concluded that the Mexican State was responsible for the arbitrary detention of the petitioners and for the violation of articles 7, 8, 9, and 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and falls within categories I, II and IV related to the Group's mandate.

18 February 2020 | Judicial Body: UN Human Rights Council | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention | Countries: Mexico