CASE OF ABDI v. DENMARK (Application no. 41643/19)
The case concerns the Danish authorities’ decision in 2018 to expel the applicant, with a permanent ban on his re-entry to the country, following his conviction for possession of a firearm. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention, the applicant submits that, in their decisions, the Danish courts failed to weigh in the balance that he did not have a significant criminal past, that he had never been issued with a warning that he might be expelled, and that he had strong ties to Denmark where he has lived with his family since he was four years old. 14 September 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Expulsion | Countries: Denmark - Somalia |
CASE OF NUR AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 77647/11)
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 | Document type: Case Law | 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 |
Case of Nur Ahmed and Others v. Ukraine
For these reasons, the court, unanimously: Decides to join the applications; Declares inadmissible: (i) the first and eighth applicants’ complaints that their detention under the domestic court’s detention orders did not comply with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention and (ii) the sixth, seventh and ninth applicants’ complaints that their detention under the domestic court’s detention orders prior to 10 August, 5 November and 22 May 2012 respectively did not comply with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention; Declares the remainder of the applications admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of second to ninth applicants, on account of lack of records of their arrest and detention prior to the issuance of detention orders in respect of them; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the second to fifth applicants on account of their detention under the domestic court’s detention orders in the absence of a decision ordering their expulsion; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the sixth applicant on account of his detention from 10 August to 17 October 2012, in respect of the seventh applicant on account of his detention from 5 to 23 November and in respect of the ninth applicant on account of his detention from 22 May to 17 October 2012; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in respect of the first and the sixth to ninth applicants. 18 June 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Asylum-seekers - Immigration Detention | Countries: Somalia - Ukraine |
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 |
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 |
Ahmed v. the United Kingdom
2 March 2017 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Refugee / Asylum law - Rejected asylum-seekers | Countries: Somalia - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
Abdullahi Elmi and Aweys Abubakar v. Malta
22 November 2016 | 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): Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: Malta - Somalia |
I.A.A. and Others v. United Kingdom
31 March 2016 | 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): Decision on admissibility - Family reunification - Right to family life | Countries: Somalia - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
Moxamed Ismaaciil and Abdirahman Warsame v. Malta
12 January 2016 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Appeal / Right to appeal - Arbitrary arrest and detention - Effective remedy - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Immigration Detention - Prison or detention conditions | Countries: Malta - Somalia |
Mahamed Jama v. Malta
26 November 2015 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Prison or detention conditions | Countries: Malta - Somalia |