News

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 2 April 2026, the Human Rights Committee (CCPR) published its Views in the communication No. 3742/2020 submitted by Gentilmen Issa Magumba against the Republic of Korea, concerning the refusal to process an asylum application lodged in an airport transit zone and the applicant’s prolonged confinement in that zone.

The author, a national of the Democratic Republic of Congo, was held for approximately 14 months in the transit area of Incheon International Airport after being denied the possibility to apply for refugee status on the ground that he was a transit passenger and not subject to entry inspection. He claimed that this refusal exposed him to a risk of refoulement and that his confinement amounted to arbitrary detention and inhuman treatment.

The Committee found a violation of Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights due to the denial of access to the asylum procedure. It reiterated that States must not remove individuals where there are substantial grounds for believing that they face a real risk of irreparable harm and must ensure access to an effective and independent review with suspensive effect. In the present case, the author’s asylum request was rejected solely on formal grounds linked to his status as a transit passenger, depriving him of any opportunity to seek protection against refoulement. The Committee held that domestic legal provisions cannot be applied in a manner that undermines obligations under the Covenant.

The Committee further found a violation of Article 9(1), holding that the author’s confinement in the airport transit area constituted a deprivation of liberty. It recalled that such deprivation may arise from confinement in a restricted airport area without free consent, and that prolonged and indefinite detention of asylum seekers may be arbitrary. The Committee noted that the author was subjected to de facto detention for approximately 14 months within a space under the State party’s jurisdiction, without any legal basis, as no formal detention order had been issued. His confinement was of indefinite duration, lacked appropriate justification, and was not based on an assessment of necessity or proportionality. The Committee therefore concluded that the author’s detention was arbitrary and constituted a violation of Article 9(1) of the Covenant.

Finally, the Committee found the conditions of detention and the prolonged exposure to inadequate living conditions such as lack of privacy, insufficient access to food, medical care and sanitary facilities and constant lighting during COVID-19 pandemic, to be incompatible with human dignity, therefore finding a violation of Article 10(1) of the Covenant.

The Committee concluded that the State party violated Articles 7, 9(1) and 10(1) of the Covenant and held that it is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy, including compensation, and to take measures to prevent similar violations in the future.
 

On 26 March 2026, the First Section of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) published its judgment in the case of D.M. v. Sweden (Application no. 32694/23). The case concerned the removal of an Afghan national of Hazara ethnicity from Sweden to Afghanistan following the rejection of his applications for asylum.

The applicant applied for asylum in Sweden in 2015 relying on several grounds, including risks arising from his conversion to Christianity, his Hazara ethnicity, and his alleged “westernisation” after a prolonged stay in Sweden. His claims were examined in two separate sets of asylum proceedings, which were ultimately rejected by the Swedish authorities. Following the final rejection of his application, the applicant lodged a complaint before the ECtHR under Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) taken alone or in conjunction with Article 13 ECHR. An interim measure was applied to prevent his removal, and the Court considered that the applicant’s complaints should be examined only under Article 3 of the Convention.

In relation to the complaint under Article 3, the Court emphasised that the assessment must be rigorous and focus on the foreseeable consequences of removal, taking into account both the general situation in the country of destination and the applicant’s personal circumstances. The Court found that the domestic authorities’ assessment of the general situation in Afghanistan was insufficiently reasoned and therefore carried out its own ex nunc examination. It observed that, although the security and human rights situation remained serious and fragile, with widespread abuses and strict social control under the Taliban regime, the level of indiscriminate violence did not reach the threshold necessary to breach Article 3 of the Convention. However, it emphasised that this general situation must be taken into account in the assessment of individual risk. As regards the situation of Hazaras, while acknowledging that Hazaras face discrimination, targeted attacks and a lack of effective protection, the Court did not consider that they are systematically exposed to ill-treatment reaching the threshold of Article 3 ECHR. Nevertheless, it held that Hazara ethnicity constitutes a relevant risk-enhancing factor in relation to other risks.

In assessing the applicant’s individual circumstances, the Court found that the domestic authorities had failed to adequately substantiate their conclusions and, in particular, had not carried out a cumulative assessment of all relevant risk factors. It observed that the applicant’s Hazara ethnicity, combined with his area of origin and intended return (Mazar-e Sharif, Balkh province), exposed him to heightened risks. As regards his alleged conversion, the Court considered that a genuine conversion had not been established but recognised the risk extended to individuals perceived as apostates or as having abandoned Islam. Domestic authorities had also underestimated the risks associated with the applicant’s “westernisation’’. In the context of the current repressive regime in Afghanistan, the Court was not convinced that the applicant would be able to conceal these aspects of his identity having to comply with the extensive rules and restrictions governing almost every aspect of daily life, the active monitoring of compliance by the Taliban and members of Afghan communities, and the arbitrary and unpredictable nature of the authorities’ enforcement.

Thus, having regard to the cumulative effect of the applicant’s personal circumstances assessed in the light of the general human rights situation in Afghanistan, the Court concluded that there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would face a real risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR upon return to Afghanistan.

On 27 February 2026, the Court of First Instance of Antwerp, Family Court Section (Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Antwerpen, familierechtbank) annulled a decision of the civil registrar of the City of Antwerp revoking the Belgian nationality of a child born in Belgium of Palestinian parents recognised as refugees.

The child had initially been granted Belgian nationality pursuant to Article 10§1 of the Belgian Nationality Code to prevent statelessness. On 5 March 2024, the registrar of Antwerp revoked the child’s nationality on the grounds that the child could acquire Palestinian nationality through the parents or via the Palestinian mission. As a result, the child’s Belgian passport and Kids-ID were annulled. The parents contested the revocation, maintaining that as recognised refugees it was not feasible for them to secure Palestinian nationality for their child. The City of Antwerp and the Public Prosecutor’s Office argued that the claim should be dismissed, citing a potential “pull effect” and alleged abuse of the nationality rules.

The Court of First Instance annulled the revocation holding that under Article 10§3 of the Belgian Nationality Code (WBN) nationality may only be withdrawn if it is established beyond doubt that the child possesses another nationality. Hence, given the absence of formal Palestinian nationality legislation and the impossibility for refugees to register remotely, the child could not realistically acquire another nationality. The court further held that any alleged abuse of Belgian nationality rules by the parents could not justify the deprivation of the child’s nationality, highlighting that the best interests of the child (Article 22bis of the Constitution) must prevail.

According to the Court’s press release, five similar decisions from the city register were annulled by the Court on the same grounds.

Unofficial translation by the EWLU team

On 22 January 2026, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) communicated the application of D.A. v. Türkiye (Application no. 5393/25). The case concerns the alleged failure of the domestic authorities to duly assess the risk of death or ill-treatment in the event of the removal of a Turkmenistan national, who claimed that she had been persecuted in Turkmenistan on account of her political opinions and professional activities as a journalist.

The applicant challenged the removal order issued by the Trabzon Provincial Directorate of Migration Management in May 2023, but the removal was subsequently upheld by the Trabzon Administrative Court in September 2023. The Constitutional Court later examined her complaints under the prohibition of ill-treatment and declared them inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. The applicant invokes Articles 2, 3, and 13 of ECHR.

The Court asked the parties to clarify, inter alia, whether the applicant faces a real risk of treatment contrary to Articles 2 and 3 ECHR if removed to Turkmenistan.