Case summaries
The case examined the allegations of the applicant that his proposed expulsion to Turkey would place him at risk of inhuman and degrading treatment and would jeopardize his physical and health integrity.
The Court found no violation of the articles 2 and 3 of the Convention and held the claimed violations of articles 6 and 8 to be unfounded.
The court found that the removal of a Somali applicant to Italy under the Dublin Regulation would not result in a violation of article 3of the Convention and would not entail any violation of the rights set in article 1, 2, 5, 6 and 13.
The case examines the risk to an Iranian national if expelled to Iran in light of his political activities against the country’s regime. The Court confirmed that such a return would give rise to a violation of Article 3 ECHR and whilst finding an Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 3 violation as admissible it raised no separate issue in the case.
The right to court, which includes the principle of contradictoriness and its essential element – the possibility to get acquainted with the information in possession of the authority or the court – is not a value overriding other values protected by the national legal order.
Such an understanding is reflected in EU law – Article 13 para 1 of the Returns Directive.
In the opinion of the Court it is not inconsistent with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, bearing in mind Article 52 para. 1.
Disclosing concrete information gathered by a specialised agency, responsible for state security, enables identification of the source of information, so it can pose a threat to other persons or even exclude the possibility of obtaining any further relevant information.
In this situation, taking into account the need to protect state security there are limitations which impact upon the procedural rights of a person. However these are justifiable on account of public interest.
Asylum seeker’s return to Iran would not violate Article 2 or 3 because the risk of political persecution was unsubstantiated and peripheral and his conversion to Christianity was likely unknown to the authorities.
The Court examined the complaints of a Somali national concerning her detention conditions in Malta (Article 3), which deteriorated her mental health and resulted in inhuman and degrading treatment. She further alleged that her detention was in breach of Article 5 § 1, 2 and 4 (Right to liberty and security).
It is not the case that in autumn 2008 the Austrian authorities ought to have known that serious deficiencies in the Greek asylum system risked a violation of the Applicant’s Article 3 rights if transferred to Greece under the Dublin procedure.
The lack of close and rigorous scrutiny during the relevant period by the Czech authorities of the Applicant’s claim that expulsion would violate his rights under Article 3, including the ignoring of an important judgment blocking his extradition, constituted a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3.
The ban on the introduction of new matters in appeal proceedings as stipulated in the Asylum Act does not violate the right of access to the courts contained in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as it represents a proportional restriction.
In the case of a Palestinian stateless asylum-seeker from Lebanon, the Court found the objection of the OIN (that was otherwise unverified by documents and based on which the decision to reject was made) to be unfounded, and recognised the Applicant as refugee. The Court emphasized that any procedure where the contents of the objection concerning a matter of national security are not subject to review, is arbitrary and seriously contradicts the principles of the rule of law as it makes the right to an effective remedy meaningless.