Legal Information

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 11 December 2021.

23 November 2021 | Judicial Body: Republic of Korea: Seoul Administrative Court | Topic(s): Housing, land and property rights (HLP) | Countries: Korea, Republic of

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list and to discontinue the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

16 November 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Illegal entry - Immigration Detention - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Afghanistan - Hungary

In view of the above, the Court notes that the risk of the applicant being expelled and, potentially, being exposed to a risk of treatment in breach of Article 3, has now, at least temporarily, been removed. Moreover, the Court finds that the complaints under Article 13 and on the procedural requirements of Article 3 in the present case are in essence inextricably connected to the proposed expulsion of the applicant (see Nasseri v the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24239/09, § 18, 13 October 2015, and J.W. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 16177/14, § 32, 27 June 2017). In these circumstances, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)). Moreover, it is satisfied that respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto, does not require a continuation of the application by virtue of Article 37 § 1 in fine. Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the list.

21 October 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Human rights law - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Afghanistan - Netherlands

Discrimination; intérêt supérieur de l’enfant; développement de l’enfant; droit de l’enfant d’être entendu dans toute procédure judiciaire ou administrative l’intéressant; protection et assistance humanitaire voulues pour les enfants réfugiés; droit de l’enfant de jouir du meilleur état de santé possible; traitements inhumains ou dégradants

6 October 2021 | Judicial Body: UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) | Topic(s): Children's rights - Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness - Statelessness | Countries: Bulgaria - Switzerland - Syrian Arab Republic

The Constitutional Court addressed its judgement E 3445/2021 (issued 30 September 2021) that an extreme volatility of the security situation in Afghanistan was to be assumed based on country information sheets on Afghanistan issued by the Austrian COI Unit on 11 June 2021 and 19 July 2021 at the date of the decision of the Federal Administrative Court on 29 July 2021. In addition, the widespread media coverage after 20 July 2021 (which was therefore available at the time of the decision of the Federal Administrative Court) lead to the same conclusion. The complainant would have therefor been exposed to a real danger of violation of his constitutional rights under Articles 2 and 3 ECHR if he were to return to Afghanistan. (see also E 3047/2021 issued 24 September 2021)

30 September 2021 | Judicial Body: Austria: Constitutional Court of Austria (Verfassungsgerichtshof) | Topic(s): Asylum-seekers - Country of origin information (COI) | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria