Case Law

The French authorities had failed in their duties under domestic law. They were found responsible for the conditions in which the applicants had been living for several months: sleeping rough, without access to sanitary facilities, having no means of subsistence and constantly in fear of being attacked or robbed. The applicants had thus been victims of degrading treatment, showing a lack of respect for their dignity. The Court found that such living conditions, combined with the lack of an appropriate response from the French authorities and the fact that the domestic courts had systematically objected that the competent bodies lacked resources in the light of their status as single young men, had exceeded the threshold of severity for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention. The three applicants N.H., K.T. and A.J. had thus found themselves, through the fault of the French authorities, in a situation that was incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention.

2 July 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Reception - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Afghanistan - France - Georgia - Iran, Islamic Republic of - Russian Federation

The applicant complained that the Slovakian authorities, having arrested him after he had crossed from Ukraine, had failed to inform him of the reasons for his arrest, in violation of Article 5 § 2 of the Convention. They had then returned him to Ukraine, where he had been detained in inadequate conditions in disregard of his alleged status as a minor, in breach of Article 3. He had been unable to participate effectively in the proceedings concerning his detention, and had eventually been returned to Afghanistan in the absence of an adequate assessment of the risks he had faced there, in breach of Article 3, Article 5 §§ 1, 2 and 4, and Article 13 of the Convention. Lastly, he alleged, under Article 34, that an NGO representative had been denied access to him in Ukraine, preventing him from lodging an application for an interim measure with the Court.

11 June 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Children's rights - Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Immigration Detention - Legal representation / Legal aid - Rejected asylum-seekers | Countries: Afghanistan - Slovakia - Ukraine

The applicants alleged that their expulsion to Ukraine had been collective in nature and that they had not had an effective remedy in respect of it. In particular, they alleged that the State authorities had not carried out an individual assessment and examination of their cases and had denied them access to the asylum procedure.

24 March 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 - Expulsion | Countries: Afghanistan - Slovakia

Art 3 ECHR • Expulsion • No risk of ill-treatment in case of removal of Afghan Sikhs to Afghanistan • Adequate assessment of the risks by the domestic authorities • No compelling humanitarian grounds against removal. See also joint partly dissenting opinion on the assessment by the domestic authorities of the foreseeable consequences of the applications to Afghanistan.

25 February 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Sikh | Countries: Afghanistan - Netherlands

The case concerned the removal from Switzerland to Afghanistan of an Afghan national of Hazara ethnicity who was a Muslim convert to Christianity. The European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there would be: a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights in the event of the applicant’s return to Afghanistan.

5 November 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Refugee / Asylum law - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) | Countries: Afghanistan - Switzerland

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 | 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

The second subparagraph of Article 46(2) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection must be interpreted as meaning that subsidiary protection status, granted under legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not offer the ‘same rights and benefits as those offered by the refugee status under Union and national law’, within the meaning of that provision, so that a court of that Member State may not dismiss an appeal brought against a decision considering an application unfounded in relation to refugee status but granting subsidiary protection status as inadmissible on the grounds of insufficient interest on the part of the applicant in maintaining the proceedings where it is found that, under the applicable national legislation, those rights and benefits afforded by each international protection status are not genuinely identical. Such an appeal may not be dismissed as inadmissible, even if it is found that, having regard to the applicant’s particular circumstances, granting refugee status could not confer on him more rights and benefits than granting subsidiary protection status, in so far as the applicant does not, or has not yet, relied on rights which are granted by virtue of refugee status, but which are not granted, or are granted only to a limited extent, by virtue of subsidiary protection status.

18 October 2018 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Complementary forms of protection - Decision on admissibility - Effective remedy | Countries: Afghanistan - Slovenia

On 18 October, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its judgment on a preliminary reference submitted by the Slovenian Supreme Court, on the difference between refugee and subsidiary protection statuses. The need for a preliminary ruling arose in the context of asylum proceedings, where a minor national of Afghanistan was granted subsidiary protection status, following several unsuccessful legal challenges. When the issue was brought before the Supreme Court of Slovenia, the domestic judges decided to refer a question to the CJEU regarding the admissibility of the applicant’s appeal against his subsidiary protection status in the context of sufficient interest, according to Article 46 (2) of Directive 2013/32/EU. The question was centred on the difference in cessation and duration requirements of the two statuses, as well as the ancillary rights thereof. The Court first noted that the recitals of Directive 2011/95/EU indicate that EU legislators intended to establish an integral framework for all beneficiaries of international protection, save for objectively necessary exceptions for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status. After analysing the content of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Court stated that this article sets a requirement for a restrictive interpretation of any exception from the right to an effective remedy before a court, such as the one introduced by the aforementioned article of Directive 2013/32/EU. As such, for a subsidiary protection beneficiary’s action to be deemed inadmissible due to lack of sufficient interest, the rights and benefits granted must indeed be the same as those the applicant would enjoy if they held refugee status, even if the difference only encompasses ancillary rights. Moreover, a difference between the duration of the two statuses has to be regarded as difference in rights and benefits that justifies an admissible legal challenge. Lastly, any relevant assessment on the existence of different rights and benefits for international protection beneficiaries should not depend on the appellant’s individual situation, but rather on an overall assessment of national legislation. According to the Court’s restrictive interpretation, this is dictated by the text of Article 46 (2), as well as the need for the predictability of this legal provision, which would vary unacceptably according to each applicant’s personal circumstances. ELENA Weekly Legal Update - 19 October 2018

18 October 2018 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Complementary forms of protection - Decision on admissibility - Effective remedy | Countries: Afghanistan - Slovenia

The Court found in particular that the applicants had been deprived of their liberty for their first month in the centre, until 21 April 2016 when it became a semi-open centre. The Court was nevertheless of the view that the one-month period of detention, whose aim had been to guarantee the possibility of removing the applicants under the EU-Turkey Declaration, was not arbitrary and could not be regarded as “unlawful” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (f). However, the applicants had not been appropriately informed about the reasons for their arrest or the remedies available in order to challenge that detention.

25 January 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Prison or detention conditions - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Afghanistan - Greece