UNHCR is not responsible for the content and availability of non-UNHCR websites. Content displays in a new window.
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 | 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 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 | 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 |
Moxamed Ismaaciil and Abdirahman Warsame v. Malta
12 January 2016 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | 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 |
A.S. v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal
Application for judicial review. 20 January 2009 | Judicial Body: Ireland: High Court | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Ashraf - Credibility assessment - Non-state agents of persecution - Racial / Ethnic persecution | Countries: Ireland - Somalia |
Refugee Appeal No. 74515
19 March 2003 | Judicial Body: New Zealand: Refugee Status Appeals Authority | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Country of origin information (COI) - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Non-state agents of persecution - Persecution based on political opinion - Racial / Ethnic persecution | Countries: New Zealand - Somalia |
Amuur v. France
in order to determine whether someone has been “deprived of his liberty” within the meaning of Article 5 of the ECHR, “the starting point must be his concrete situation, and account must be taken of a whole range of criteria such as the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the measure in question. The difference between deprivation of and restriction upon liberty is merely one of degree or intensity, and not one of nature or substance. [...] Above all, such confinement must not deprive the asylum-seeker of the right to gain effective access to the procedure for determining refugee status” (para. 43) 25 June 1996 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Right to liberty and security - Transit | Countries: France - Somalia |