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 | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return | Countries: France - Russian Federation

Confirmed on 8 September 2022. The english-language version is an unofficial translation. The Korean-language original is attached.

18 August 2022 | Judicial Body: Republic of Korea: Seoul Administrative Court | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Non-refoulement | Countries: Korea, Republic of

It is likely that § 265 grants the Executive sweeping authority to prohibit aliens from entering the United States during a public-health emergency; that the Executive may expel aliens who violate such a prohibition; and that under § 1231(b)(3)(A) and the Convention Against Torture, the Executive cannot expel aliens to countries where their “life or freedom would be threatened” on account of their “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion” or where they will likely face torture.

4 March 2022 | Judicial Body: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | Topic(s): COVID-19 - Deportation / Forcible return - Expulsion - Public health | Countries: United States of America

28 January 2022 | Judicial Body: UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) | Legal Instrument: 1984 Convention against Torture (CAT) | Topic(s): Convention against Torture (CAT) - Deportation / Forcible return - Eritreans - Exhaustion of domestic remedies - Torture | Countries: Eritrea - Switzerland

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 | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Eritreans - Immigration Detention | Countries: Eritrea - Russian Federation

Confirmed on 25 August 2021.

9 August 2021 | Judicial Body: Republic of Korea: Incheon District Court | Topic(s): Airports - Deportation / Forcible return - Freedom of movement - Transit | Countries: Korea, Republic of

The Committee considered that the State party failed to adequately assess the author’s real, personal and foreseeable risk of returning to Afghanistan, in particular taking into account his father’s alleged threats of revenge and his trauma as a result of parental abuse. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the State party failed to give due consideration to the consequences of the author’s personal situation in Afghanistan and concludes that his removal to Afghanistan by the State party would constitute a violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant.

30 April 2021 | Judicial Body: UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Human rights law | Countries: Afghanistan - Sweden