Case summaries
Regarding the return of a Turkish applicant from Greece to Türkiye, her account constituted a prima facie case of refoulement, shifting the burden of proof to the Greek Government after evidentiary standards from secret detention cases were applied. The return of the applicant without any individual assessment or access to remedies, despite her asylum request and risk of ill-treatment due to alleged links to opposition movements in Türkiye, amounts to a violation of Articles 3 and 13 ECHR.
The applicant’s unregistered detention at a border guard station, without legal basis, information on the reasons for her arrest, or access to judicial review, as part of a broader Greek pattern of unlawful returns, amounts to a violation of Article 5(1), (2) and (4) ECHR. Although the applicant failed to prove a real risk to life or inhuman or degrading treatment during her removal process – where she travelled by an inflatable boat with other migrants –, the absence of an effective remedy to challenge such risks amounts to a violation of Article 13 ECHR.
An applicant will not be subject to risk of ill treatment under Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR, either because of the general security situation in Libya or the applicant’s previous work affiliated with the Gaddafi regime. The Court found that the situation in Libya was not such that the applicant would face ill treatment upon return and that the documents submitted to prove otherwise were of low evidentiary value.
The Court found Hungary in violation of procedural aspects of Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR, as well as a substantive violation of Article 2 in relation to the death of the applicant’s brother during a border control operation. The Court rejected the substantive violation of Article 3 due to a lack of conclusive evidence from an effective investigation.
The Court found that there was a violation of Article 2 of the ECHR as State authorities used unreliable evidence to conclude their investigation into the death of an applicant. Moreover, the Court concluded that the State authorities violated Article 5 ECHR by failing to conduct an effective investigation into whether there was an alternative to detaining the applicants. As such, the detention of the children in a detention centre was further found to have violated Article 3, especially given the severity of the circumstances of the case and the period of their detention. The Court also concluded that the applicants had been subject to “expulsion” within the meaning of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4, since they were forcibly returned by the Croatian police outside official border crossings and without prior notification to the authorities of the country to which they were being returned.
To determine whether there is a violation of Articles 2 and 3 ECHR in the context of expulsion, the Court analyses if the Applicant has presented substantial grounds on (i) whether he faces a real risk of ill-treatment or death in the country of destination, and (ii)whether the national authorities carried out an adequate assessment of the evidence. States have an obligation to analyse the risk ex propio motu when they are aware of facts that could expose an individual to the risk of treatment prohibited by Articles 2 and 3 ECHR. If the domestic jurisdictions didn’t carry out a proper assessment, the Court analyses the risk on its own on the basis of the parties submissions, international reports and its own findings.
States have an obligation, under Article 5 § 1 ECHR, to act with due diligence and impose a reasonable period of detention pending expulsion. Article 5 § 4 ECHR is breached if detained individuals can’t obtain a revision of their detention before a domestic court.
The fact that many Uighurs who have returned to China have been detained in “re-education camps”, or have otherwise faced the risk of imprisonment and ill-treatment, combined with the applicants’ individual circumstances, establishes substantial grounds to believe that the applicants would be at real risk of arbitrary detention, and inhuman treatment, or even death, if they were removed to their country of origin.
If implemented, the applicants’ removal to China would be in breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR.
The applicants’ personal circumstances and the general conditions in the country of origin have to be taken into account, when assessing whether an internal flight alternative exists. Relevant sources like the UNHCR guidelines have to be used. Otherwise this constitutes a significant procedural error.
The judicial examination of whether subsidiary protection shall be approved requires a thorough assessment of the individual case. This applies in particular for especially vulnerable persons.
In the assessment of a real risk of inhuman treatment or a serious threat to life or physical integrity in a situation of indiscriminate violence within an armed conflict, not only the general security and supply situation has to be considered, but also the “specific distinguishing features” of the applicant, which expose him/her to a higher risk than the average population.
In the present case, the Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht, BVwG) did not assess the individual circumstances of the applicant, disregarding the binding force of a previous ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof, VwGH).
The Court indicated interim measures (under Rule 39) to Russia after the order of removal of a Syrian national who applied for asylum after the expiry of his student visa. Subsequently, the applicant applied to the Court against the Russian Federation claiming that Russia had breached his rights under Articles 2, 3, 5(1)(f) and 5(4) of the Convention.