News

On 1 July 2026, the Higher Administrative Court of Saxony (Sächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht) delivered its judgment in case 2A159/24.A concerning the entitlement to subsidiary protection for Russian nationals subject to compulsory military service.

The applicant, a 23-year-old Russian national who had lived in Germany since the age of 16, claimed that he would face serious harm if returned to Russia due to his likely conscription for military service and the risk of subsequent involvement in combat operations in Ukraine. The Court considered that he was likely to be called up for basic military service and that his prospects of obtaining alternative civilian service were limited. Nevertheless, it held that the basic military service in Russia did not in itself raise a real risk of serious harm within the meaning of Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1347 . Although the Court acknowledged that dedovshchina, a system of harassment and intimidation of younger recruits, continues to occur within the Russian armed forces, it considered that such acts could not be attributed to the State and that the number of reported incidents did not establish a considerable risk of ill-treatment.

Regarding the involvement in the war in Ukraine, the Court recognised that compulsory participation in combat operations in a war of aggression contrary to international law could constitute serious harm. Nevertheless, it found that there was no considerable probability that the applicant would be deployed to Ukraine. Similarly, while reports indicated that conscripts may be subjected to pressure, deception or violence to induce them to become contract soldiers, the available evidence did not establish that the applicant faced a considerable risk of being coerced into signing such a contract. The Court therefore concluded that he was not entitled to subsidiary protection.

On 24 June 2026, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) communicated the application Ali Khaledi Batrashi and Others v. Cyprus (Application no. 29564/25). The case concerns the alleged unlawful deportation of the first applicant to Iran without an adequate assessment of the risk of ill-treatment upon return, as well as the alleged lack of procedural safeguards in the deportation and detention proceedings.

The first applicant had lived in Cyprus since 2007 and remained there on humanitarian grounds after his asylum application was rejected, owing to the severe disability of one of his daughters. Following his arrest in 2023 on suspicion of involvement in terrorist activities, he was detained several times and was deported to Iran in May 2025. The first applicant alleges that his deportation exposed him to a real risk of ill-treatment in Iran and that he was subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 during his deportation. He further complains that his detention was unlawful and arbitrary and that the judicial review proceedings concerning his detention did not comply with the requirements of Article 5 ECHR. The remaining applicants complain that the first applicant’s deportation interfered with their right to respect for family life.

The Court asked the parties, inter alia, whether the Cypriot authorities carried out a thorough assessment of the alleged risk of ill-treatment before deporting the first applicant, whether his detention complied with the requirements of Article 5 ECHR and whether his deportation disproportionately interfered with the applicants’ right to respect for family life under Article 8 ECHR.

On 24 June 2026, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) communicated the application of G.B. v. the Netherlands (Application no. 7740/26). The case concerns the alleged risk of ill-treatment of the applicant if returned to her country of origin, and the Dutch authorities’ alleged failure to properly assess her asylum application.

The applicant, a national of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), applied for international protection in the Netherlands, alleging that she had been subjected to repeated sexual violence in the DRC and during her journey to the Netherlands. Her asylum application was rejected after the domestic authorities considered her account to be inconsistent, incoherent and vague. The applicant argued that these inconsistencies resulted from trauma caused by rape and abuse and submitted medical records documenting psychological and physical symptoms consistent with her allegations. Although she requested a forensic medical examination in accordance with the Istanbul Protocol, the domestic authorities considered such an examination unnecessary.

The Court asked the parties, inter alia, whether the Dutch authorities complied with their procedural obligations under Article 3 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) when assessing the applicant’s asylum claim, and whether they adequately took into account the possible impact of trauma on her ability to provide credible, consistent and detailed statements.

On 26 May 2026, the Third Section of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered its judgment in J.B. v. Greece (Application no. 54796/16). The case concerns the potential return of the applicant from Greece to Türkiye under the EU-Türkiye Statement of 18 March 2016.

The applicant left Syria in April 2015 due to the armed conflict and alleged risks of persecution on account of his ethnic and religious background. He travelled to Türkiye, where he remained for approximately one year under temporary protection. In May 2016 he arrived in Greece, where he was arrested on grounds of unlawful entry. He applied for international protection claiming that he faced a risk of ill-treatment in Türkiye due to his Armenian origin and his Christian faith. His application for international protection was declared inadmissible on the basis that Türkiye constituted a “first country of asylum” or a “safe third country”, a decision upheld on appeal by the domestic authorities. The applicant complained before the ECtHR about deficiencies on the examination of his asylum application by the Greek authorities, as well as the risk he entailed if returned to Türkiye, including the chain refoulement to Syria, and about the conditions of his detention in Greece.

In regard to the complaint under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the risk of ill-treatment upon removal, the Court found that since the applicant had in the meantime obtained refugee status in France, the risk of ill-treatment if returned to Türkiye and subsequently to Syria has ceased to exist. Therefore, it considered unjustified to continue the examination of that complaint.

In relation to Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3, the Court found that the applicant’s asylum claim had been examined through a multi-layered procedure before the asylum authorities and domestic courts, during which he was interviewed with interpretation, able to present his individual circumstances and challenge the application of the ‘’safe third country’’ concept. It also held that the authorities assessed both his personal situation and relevant country information concerning Türkiye through reports, statistics and objective material, including the alleged risk of onward refoulement to Syria and the assurances provided within the framework of the EU-Türkiye Statement. Therefore, the Court concluded that the Greek authorities could reasonably rely on those assurances and supporting material and that the applicant had been afforded effective safeguards against arbitrary removal contrary to Article 3, finding no violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3.

Finally, regarding to the complaint under Article 3 ECHR concerning the conditions of detention pending removal, the Court reiterated that Greek police stations are facilities designed only for short periods of confinement and that detention therein for periods ranging from one to three months have consistently been found contrary to Article 3, particularly in view of deficiencies such as overcrowding, poor sanitary conditions and lack of outdoor exercise. Since the applicant had been detained in Mytilene police station for one month and nineteen days, the Court found that the conditions of his detention amounted to degrading treatment contrary to Article 3

On 8 April 2026, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) communicated the application of K.P. v. Cyprus (Application no. 30430/25). The case concerns the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention pending deportation and the risk of ill-treatment if returned to Iran.

The applicant, an Iranian national recognised as refugee in Cyprus, was arrested in November 2023 on suspicion of involvement in terrorist activities. He was subsequently classified as a ‘’prohibited migrant’’ and placed in detention pending his deportation to Iran. The applicant challenged the detention and deportation decisions before the Administrative Court, which held that it lacked jurisdiction to examine the deportation decision and dismissed the recourse, finding the detention lawful, necessary and proportionate. The applicant subsequently lodged three habeas corpus applications before the Supreme Court, all of which were unsuccessful. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the risk of ill-treatment upon return to Iran as well as the conditions of his detention, under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 of the lack of an effective remedy to challenge his expulsion, and under Articles 5 §§ 1 and 4 ECHR regarding the lawfulness of his detention and access to legal aid.

On 9 April 2026, the First Section of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered its judgment in H.D. v. Italy (Application no. 41645/23). The case concerned the placement and prolonged stay of an unaccompanied child in an adult reception centre in Italy, as well as the lawfulness of his deprivation of liberty and the adequacy of available remedies.

The applicant, a Burkinabe national, was placed in the adult reception and asylum centre in Isola di Capo Rizzuto (Crotone). Despite being soon recognised as a minor and granted a residence permit, he remained in the centre for more than five months without being allowed to leave. During that time, he challenged his situation before the domestic courts and subsequently requested an interim measure under Rule 39, which led to his transfer to a facility for unaccompanied children.

The Court found that the applicant’s deprivation of liberty lacked any legal basis and could not be justified under Article 5 § 1 (f) ECHR. It examined both limbs of that provision and noted that no removal or refusal of entry procedure had been initiated. On the contrary, the applicant had been formally recognised as a child and granted a residence permit to stay in Italy. The Court therefore concluded that his detention could not be justified under Article 5 § 1 (f). It also rejected the Government’s reliance on subsequent legislative amendments allowing the temporary accommodation of minors in adult centres, noting that these provisions entered into force after the applicant’s placement and did not provide a legal basis for deprivation of liberty. Furthermore, the Court held that the authorities failed to inform the applicant of the reasons for his detention, in breach of Article 5 § 2. Regarding Article 5 § 4, the Court recalled the requirement of a speedy judicial review and found that the domestic proceedings lasted several months and only concluded after the applicant’s transfer following an interim measure, therefore finding a violation of Article 5 § 4.

In relation to the complaint under Article 3, the Court reiterated the principles applicable to the treatment of persons held in immigration detention and emphasized the particular vulnerability of children. It found that the applicant had been held for over five months in an adult reception centre characterised by overcrowding, poor material and hygienic conditions, and a lack of appropriate services. Although children were nominally placed in a separate area, the evidence showed that separation from adults was ineffective in practice and that they lived in close contact. Moreover, no specific educational, recreational or psychosocial support adapted to minors was provided, and the applicant was not allowed to leave the centre. The Court concluded that the applicant had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 ECHR.

The Court also found that Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3 had been violated. The applicant’s complaint concerned not only the material conditions of detention but also his placement in an adult facility, which required an effective remedy capable of securing his prompt transfer to a suitable centre for children. Although a domestic remedy was available, the Court considered that the delays in the proceedings rendered it ineffective in practice.

On 10 February 2026, the Fifth Section of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) communicated the application of C.I. v. Cyprus (Application no. 12347/25). The case concerns the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention pending deportation and the risk of death or ill-treatment if returned to Burundi.

The applicant, a Burundian national, lodged an asylum application in Cyprus on the grounds that he would face serious threats to his life and a real risk of ill-treatment upon return to Burundi. His claim was rejected, and he was detained as a “prohibited immigrant” on 22 February 2025. His deportation was suspended following interim measures by the Court, and he remained in detention until 15 December 2025, when he was released after successful habeas corpus proceedings. He complains under Articles 2 and 3 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) concerning the risk of ill-treatment upon return, under Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3 for the lack of an effective domestic remedy, and under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 ECHR regarding the lawfulness of his detention and access to legal aid.

The Court asked the parties to clarify, inter alia, whether the applicant had exhausted all effective domestic remedies, whether he faced a real risk of ill-treatment upon return to Burundi, and whether he had access to effective remedies to challenge his deportation and detention.

Belgium: Council for Aliens' Law Litigation annuls inadmissibility decisions for beneficiaries of international protection in Greece

On 20 February 2026, the United Chambers of the Council for Aliens’ Law Litigation (RvV-CCE) (CALL) annulled three inadmissibility decisions of the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (CGRS) concerning applications for international protection lodged by Palestinians who had been granted international protection in Greece. The three cases were examined together in the same proceedings (Nos. 341 503, 341 504, and 341 505 CR).

The cases concerned beneficiaries of international protection whose Greek residence permits had expired. During the waiting period for the renewal of these permits, the applicants lacked access to the rights and benefits associated with their status, including employment, housing, healthcare, and social assistance. The CALL  found that, in the absence of these benefits to meet their basic needs during the waiting  period, the applicants risked falling into extreme material deprivation incompatible with human dignity under Article 4 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Therefore, the Council annulled the three inadmissibility decisions on the ground that the CGRS had failed to sufficiently examine whether the applicants would be able to remain in Greece and meet their basic needs pending the renewal of their residence permits. In doing so, the CALL confirmed its previous case law on the precarious situation of beneficiaries of international protection in Greece (RvV‑CCE 22 January 2024, No. 300 342 CR).

Unofficial translation by the EWLU team

On 16 February 2026, the Second Section of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) published the communicated cases of M.R. v. Türkiye (Application no. 12965/21), and M.S. v. Türkiye (Application no. 20148/25), concerning the removal of Syrian nationals from Türkiye.

The case of M.R. v. Türkiye concerns a Syrian national who arrived in Türkiye in 2011 and was granted temporary protection. In August 2019, he was apprehended and placed in police custody and later in immigration detention. On 24 August 2019, he was returned to Syria under the voluntary repatriation scheme. The applicant alleges that his removal was a de facto deportation disguised as voluntary return and that it exposed him to a real risk of ill-treatment. He further complains of unlawful deprivation of liberty, lack of procedural safeguards, the absence of an effective remedy to challenge his detention and removal, and impact on his private and family life, invoking articles 2,3,5,8,13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.7 thereof. 

The Court asked the parties to clarify the applicant’s alleged minor status, the voluntariness of his return and the prior assessment of the risk under Articles 2 and 3 ECHR, as well as the lawfulness of his detention and the availability of effective remedies.

The case of M.S. v. Türkiye concerns three Syrian nationals who fled to Türkiye in 2013–2014 and were granted temporary protection. The applicants were issued deportation orders to designated safe third countries or to return voluntarily to Syria. Two of the applicants were subject to security restrictions, and one was alleged to have links with terrorist organisations. Following these orders, all applicants were placed in administrative detention. The applicants challenge the deportation orders, arguing that the domestic authorities failed to conduct an adequate “safe third country” assessment, particularly regarding the risk of chain refoulement to Syria, and claim that removal would disproportionately interfere with their established family and private life in Türkiye. The first applicant also raises concerns about the lack of effective remedies to challenge the lack of assessment of his alleged risk of ill-treatment and the interference with his family life.

The Court asked the parties to clarify, inter alia, whether the planned expulsions would expose the applicants to a real risk of treatment contrary to Articles 2 and 3 ECHR.

On 30 January 2026, the Second Section of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) communicatedthe application of D.J. v Türkiye (Application no. 37547/22). The case concerns the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant’s deprivation of liberty and his removal to Uzbekistan.

The applicant, an Uzbek national of Turkmen ethnic origin who identifies as an activist for the independence of Karakalpakstan, was arrested during a demonstration in Istanbul in 2020. Removal orders were issued after that but later annulled due to the lack of a proper risk assessment. He subsequently lodged an application for international protection and, in December 2021, informed the authorities that he had been subjected to harassment, surveillance and death threats, prompting a criminal investigation. In January 2022, he was allegedly apprehended by undercover police officers, held without access to his lawyer or relatives and without being informed of the reasons for his apprehension, before being placed in immigration detention and deported to Uzbekistan on the same day. The Constitutional Court later declared his complaints inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.

The applicant submitted complaints under  Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 7. The Court asked the parties to clarify whether the domestic authorities conducted an adequate assessment of the alleged risk of death or ill-treatment prior to the applicant’s removal, whether he had access to an effective remedy capable of preventing his deportation, and whether his apprehension and deprivation of liberty complied with the requirements of Article 5 of the Convention.

On 23 January 2026, the Committee Against Torture of the United Nations (CAT) published its decision in the Communication No. 1079/2021 submitted by A.A. against Australia. The communication concerns the lawfulness of prolonged detention in Australia and at the Manus Regional Processing Centre in Papua New Guinea, and the possible accountability of Australia for alleged violations of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (hereinafter, the Convention).

The complainant, an Iranian national, arrived in Australia in July 2013 and was transferred under a migration cooperation agreement to the Manus Detention Centre in Papua New Guinea, where he was subjected to harsh detention conditions and torture. He was temporarily returned to Australia in 2019 for medical treatment but remained detained administratively until 2022. The applicant claimed that his detention in both Australia and Papua New Guinea was inhuman and degrading and caused him severe physical and mental suffering.

The Committee found that the complainant suffered torture and inhuman treatment while detained at the Manus Regional Processing Centre in Papua New Guinea. Although these acts occurred outside Australian territory, the Committee noted that Australia exercised effective control over the detention system through its central role in designing the migration arrangements, providing full funding, and establishing the overall framework and operational structure of the centre. Even if direct operational control by Australian agents was absent, the Committee held that Australia remained responsible, reflecting both the principle of effective control and the doctrine of joint responsibility under international law. It further observed that Australia failed to take measures to prevent acts of torture, to investigate and punish abuses, and to ensure adequate medical care during his detention, hence constituting a violation of Article 2(1), read in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Convention.

The Committee also found that the complainant’s administrative detention in Australia was not justified, necessary, or proportionate, and lacked adequate review, thereby amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment, in violation of Article 16(1) of the Convention.
Finally, the Committee recommended that Australia provide the complainant with redress, including compensation, rehabilitation, and guarantees of non-repetition, and take measures to prevent similar violations in the future.

On 22 January 2026, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) published  its judgment in the case of A.N. and Others v. Greece (Applications nos. 65267/19 and two others) finding that Greece violated Article 3 of the Convention due to inadequate living conditions at the Samos Reception and Identification Centre (RIC).

The case concerned seven unaccompanied children accommodated at the Samos RIC for four to ten months, facing severe overcrowding, unsanitary conditions, inadequate medical and psychosocial support, an insufficient "safe zone" for minors, and an ineffective guardianship system (§§72-79).

The Court emphasised that unaccompanied minors constituted a particularly vulnerable group and that credible allegations of poor conditions can shift the burden of proof to the State (§120). The ECtHR further highlighted that the situation of vulnerable persons, and particularly unaccompanied minors, requires special protection (§124).

Recalling its case-law on the vulnerability of  asylum seeking children and reception conditions in Samos RIC, the ECtHR concluded that, considering their age and their particular vulnerability as unaccompanied minors,  the reception conditions to which they were subjected in and around the Samos RIC amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. (§134). The Court also decided that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaints under Article 13, in conjunction with Articles 3 and 8 as well as the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention.