Case Law

The Court applied the relevant general principles established in its jurisprudence in the case of F.G. v. Sweden (no. 43611/11) and in the context of removals from Russia to Central Asian States in Mamazhonov v. Russia (no. 17239/13): a) When examining the existence of substantial grounds for believing that the applicant faces a real risk of ill-treatment, the Court recalled that individuals whose extradition was sought by the Uzbek authorities on charges of religiously or politically motivated crimes constituted vulnerable groups facing a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention in the event of their removal to Uzbekistan. The Court found that the applicant was accused of religiously motivated crimes on the basis of documents from the Uzbek authorities. It further considered that the Russian authorities had at their disposal sufficiently substantiated complaints pointing to a real risk of ill-treatment (§15-18). b) With respect to the duty to assess claims of a real risk of ill-treatment through reliance on sufficient relevant material, the Court concluded that the Russian authorities failed to assess the applicant’s claim adequately. The Court paid particular attention to the fact that domestic authorities did not carry out a rigorous scrutiny of the applicant’s and to the national courts’ simplistic rejections of the applicant’s claims (§19-21). c) On the existence of a real risk of ill-treatment or danger to life in their countries of origin, the Court reiterated that it has consistently concluded that the removal of an applicant charged with religiously motivated crimes in Uzbekistan exposes that applicant to a real risk of ill-treatment there (see for example: T.M. and Others v. Russia, no. 31189/15) (§22-23).

3 December 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: Kazakhstan - Russian Federation - Uzbekistan

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

The Court further notes that the move in international law towards adopting alternative measures to the administrative detention of migrants appears to concern not only children, but also their parents. violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the failure of both the Istanbul Magistrates’ Court and the Constitutional Court to conduct a review of the lawfulness of their detention in an effective and speedy manner. The Court notes, once again, that the review mechanism set out under Law no. 6458 appears to be wholly ineffective in a case, such as the present one, where the detention of a minor in the immigration context is not based on an administrative decision.

17 October 2019 | 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 - Effective remedy - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Prison or detention conditions - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Russian Federation - Türkiye

Article 46(3) 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, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, where a first-instance court or tribunal has found — after making a full and ex nunc examination of all the relevant elements of fact and law submitted by an applicant for international protection — that, under the criteria laid down by Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection and for the content of the protection granted, that applicant must be granted such protection on the ground that he or she relied on in support of his or her application, but after which the administrative or quasi-judicial body adopts a contrary decision without establishing that new elements have arisen that justify a new assessment of the international protection needs of the applicant, that court or tribunal must vary that decision which does not comply with its previous judgment and substitute its own decision for it as to the application for international protection, disapplying as necessary the national law that would prohibit it from proceeding in that way.

29 July 2019 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Administrative law - Effective remedy | Countries: Hungary - Russian Federation

Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr O.O. complained that the Russian authorities had failed to consider his arguments that he would face a real risk of ill-treatment if deported to Uzbekistan. He also alleged that his deportation had disregarded the interim measure indicated by the European Court, in breach of Article 34 (right of individual petition) of the European Convention. Violation of Article 3 – on account of the authorities deporting Mr O.O. to Uzbekistan Violation of Article 34

21 May 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: Russian Federation - Uzbekistan

I suggest that the Court reply to the Pécsi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Administrative and Labour Court, Pécs, Hungary) as follows: – Article 46(3) 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, in conjunction with the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, is to be interpreted as meaning that a model of judicial review in matters of international protection in which the courts are endowed with a mere cassational power but in which the judicial guidance they issue in their annulment decisions is effectively being disregarded by the administrative bodies when deciding on the same case again, such as demonstrated in the case in the main proceedings, fails to meet the requirements of effective judicial review set out in Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32 and interpreted in the light of the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter. – A national court, deciding in circumstances such as those in the case in the main proceedings, must set aside the national rule limiting its power to the mere annulment of the relevant administrative decision. That obligation arises when the clear assessment contained in a judicial decision annulling a previous administrative decision has been disregarded by the administrative authority deciding the same case anew, without the latter bringing any new elements that it could have reasonably and legitimately brought into consideration, thus depriving the judicial protection provided for under the invoked provisions of any practical effect.

30 April 2019 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Administrative courts - Effective remedy | Countries: Hungary - Russian Federation

31 January 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Asylum policy - Expulsion | Countries: Georgia - Russian Federation

Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Uzbekistan) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)

22 January 2019 | 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 | Countries: Russian Federation - Tajikistan - Uzbekistan

whether the applicants had actually submitted asylum applications at the border - the Court was satisfied that the applicants had submitted asylum applications, either orally or in writing, at the Lithuanian border on 16 April, 11 May and 22 May 2017. However, border guards had not accepted those applications and had not forwarded them to a competent authority for examination and status determination, as required by domestic law. Furthermore, border guards’ reports to their senior officers had not made any mention of the applicants’ wish to seek asylum on any of the three occasions – there were no references to the writing of “azul” on the decisions, nor to the written asylum application. There was also no indication either in those reports or in any other documents submitted to the Court that the border guards had attempted to clarify what was the reason – if not seeking asylum – for the applicants’ presence at the border without valid travel documents. Nor did it appear that there had been any assessment at all of whether it had been safe to return the applicants – a family with five very young children – to Belarus, which was not a Contracting Party to the European Convention on Human Rights and, according to publicly available information, could not be assumed to be a safe third country for Chechen asylum-seekers. As a result, the applicants had been returned to Belarus without there being any assessment of their asylum claims. It was therefore evident that measures which the Government had claimed constituted adequate safeguards against the arbitrary removal of asylum-seekers – such as the supervision of border guards by superior officers or the monitoring of borders by non-governmental organisations – had not been effective in the applicants’ case. Conclusion: violation (four votes to three).

11 December 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Rejection at border | Countries: Lithuania - Russian Federation

Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (Tajikistan) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (Uzbekistan) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-f - Extradition)

23 October 2018 | 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 | Countries: Russian Federation - Tajikistan - Uzbekistan