UNHCR is not responsible for the content and availability of non-UNHCR websites. Content displays in a new window.
Submission by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in the case of N.E. and Others v. Greece (Appl. no. 8716/20) before the European Court of Human Rights
11 November 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae |
UNHCR Comments
on the Draft Law "Improvement of Migration Legislation, amendment of provisions of Laws 4636/2019 (A' 169), 4375/2016 (A' 51), 4251/2014 (A' 80) and other Provisions"
12 June 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Comments on National Legislation |
Commission v Poland (Mécanisme temporaire de relocalisation de demandeurs de protection internationale) (C‑715/17, C‑718/17 and C‑719/17)
Commission sought a declaration from the Court that, by failing to indicate at regular intervals, and at least every three months, an appropriate number of applicants for international protection who could be relocated swiftly to its territory, the republic of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic failed to fulfil its obligations 2 April 2020 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Admission quotas - Burden-sharing and international co-operation - Resettlement | Countries: Czech Republic - Greece - Hungary - Italy - Poland |
UNHCR Comments on the Law on "International Protection and other Provisions" (Greece)
February 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Comments on National Legislation |
CASE OF ILIAS AND AHMED v. HUNGARY (Application no. 47287/15) (Grand Chamber)
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 | Document type: Case Law | 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 |
AFFAIRE KAAK ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE (Requête no 34215/16)
The case concerned the conditions of detention of Syrian, Afghan and Palestinian nationals in the “hotspots” of Vial and Souda (Greece), and the lawfulness of their detention in those camps. The Court considered that the authorities had done all that could reasonably be expected of them in the Vial camp to meet the obligation to provide care and protection to unaccompanied minors. The other applicants had been transferred immediately – or within ten days – from the Vial camp to the Souda camp. The Court also held that the conditions of detention in the Souda camp did not amount to inhuman or degrading treatment. The Court reiterated its previous finding that a period of one month’s detention in the Vial camp should not be considered excessive, given the time needed to comply with the relevant administrative formalities. In addition, the length of the applicants’ detention once they had expressed their wish to apply for asylum had been relatively short. In contrast, the applicants, who did not have legal assistance, had not been able to understand the content of the information brochure; in particular, they were unable to understand the material relating to the various appeal possibilities available under domestic law. 3 October 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): Access to procedures - Arbitrary arrest and detention - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Legal representation / Legal aid - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Afghanistan - Greece - Palestine, State of - Syrian Arab Republic |
Submission by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in the case of
International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and European Council for Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) v.
Greece (Complaint No. 173/2018) before the European Committee of Social Rights
9 August 2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae |
CM/Del/Dec(2019)1348/H46-9, 1348th meeting, 4-6 June 2019 (DH) in M.S.S. and Rahimi groups v. Greece (Application No. 30696/09)
11 June 2019 | Publisher: Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers | Document type: Decisions |
Recommendations by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
concerning the execution of judgments by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the cases of M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (Application No. 30696/09, Grand Chamber judgment of 21 January 2011) and of Rahimi v. Greece (Application No. 8687/08, Chamber judgment of 05 April 2011)
15 May 2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Resolutions/Recommendations/Declarations |
H.A. et autres c. Grece (application no. 19951/16)
The case concerns the arrest of the applicants, nine unaccompanied minors, and their placement in different police stations in northern Greece and in the Diavata centre. The Court found violations of articles 3 on the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment (no violation on living conditions), violation of article 13 on the right to an effective remedy and a violation of article 5 (1) and (4) on the right to liberty and security, right to a speedy decision on the lawfulness of a detention measure. 28 February 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Effective remedy - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Prison or detention conditions - Right to liberty and security - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Greece - Iraq - Morocco - Syrian Arab Republic |