Immigration law / Deportation / Forcible return

Le requérant considère qu’un éloignement vers la Fédération de Russie l’exposerait à des traitements contraires à l’article 2 § 1 de la Convention. 86. Il considère également que l’exécution de l’arrêté d’expulsion entraînerait une violation de l’article 8 de la Convention. 87. Enfin, le requérant se plaint de ne pas avoir bénéficié en droit français d’un recours effectif pour faire valoir ses griefs tirés des articles 2, 3 et 8 au mépris de l’article 13 de la Convention. 88. Eu égard aux faits de l’espèce, aux arguments des parties et à la conclusion à laquelle la Cour est parvenue sur le terrain de l’article 3 de la Convention, elle estime avoir examiné la principale question juridique soulevée par la requête. La Cour en conclut qu’il n’y a pas lieu de statuer séparément sur les autres griefs (Centre de ressources juridiques au nom de Valentin Câmpeanu c. Roumanie [GC], no 47848/08, § 156, CEDH 2014).

30 August 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return | Countries: France - Russian Federation

Having regard to the information submitted by the parties, the Court finds that at first all the applicants were detained with a view to being removed, and their detention was presumably carried out initially in good faith and in compliance with Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention. However, the length of the applicants’ detention, as summarised in the relevant part of the Appendix, was from fourteen to sixteen months and the Government submitted no information about any actions taken in pursuit of the applicants’ administrative removal during these periods. Accordingly, in the Court’s view, the length of the applicants’ detention was not demonstrably related to the purpose pursued. 51. Furthermore, as regards the applicants’ complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention concerning the lack of an effective procedure for review of detention, the Court notes that nothing in the available materials indicates that the applicants’ continued detention had been periodically reviewed or that they had indeed access to any procedure for such review. 52. Accordingly, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (f) and Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.

7 December 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Eritreans - Immigration Detention | Countries: Eritrea - Russian Federation

Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr O.O. complained that the Russian authorities had failed to consider his arguments that he would face a real risk of ill-treatment if deported to Uzbekistan. He also alleged that his deportation had disregarded the interim measure indicated by the European Court, in breach of Article 34 (right of individual petition) of the European Convention. Violation of Article 3 – on account of the authorities deporting Mr O.O. to Uzbekistan Violation of Article 34

21 May 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): Deportation / Forcible return - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: Russian Federation - Uzbekistan

May 2018 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Commentaries