ECtHR – L. E. v Greece, Application No. 71545/12, 21 January 2016
| Country of applicant: | Nigeria |
| Court name: | European Court of Human Rights (First section) |
| Date of decision: | 21-01-2016 |
| Citation: | ECtHR – L. E. v Greece, Application No. 71545/12, 21 January 2016 |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Effective access to procedures
Description
Effective access to legal and administrative procedures undertaken by UNHCR and/or States in accordance with the Asylum Procedures Directive to determine whether an individual should be recognized as a refugee in accordance with national and international law. |
|
Effective remedy (right to)
Description
A general principle of EU law now set out in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights: "Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with the conditions laid down in this Article.” “[It] is based on Article 13 of the ECHR: ‘Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.’ However, in Community law the protection is more extensive since it guarantees the right to an effective remedy before a court. The Court of Justice enshrined the principle in its judgment of 15 May 1986 (Case 222/84 Johnston [1986] ECR 1651; see also judgment of 15 October 1987, Case 222/86 Heylens [1987] ECR 4097 and judgment of 3 December 1992, Case C-97/91 Borelli [1992] ECR I-6313. According to the Court, this principle also applies to the Member States when they are implementing Community law. The inclusion of this precedent in the Charter is not intended to change the appeal system laid down by the Treaties, and particularly the rules relating to admissibility. This principle is therefore to be implemented according to the procedures laid down in the Treaties. It applies to the institutions of the Union and of Member States when they are implementing Union law and does so for all rights guaranteed by Union law.” |
|
Trafficking in human beings
Description
"The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or reception of persons, including the exchange or transfer of control over those persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. A position of vulnerability means a situation in which the person concerned has no real or acceptable alternative but to submit to the abuse involved. Exploitation includes, as a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, including begging, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude, or the exploitation of criminal activities, or the removal of organs." |
|
Residence document
Description
“any authorisation issued by the authorities of a Member State authorising a third-country national to stay in its territory, including the documents substantiating the authorisation to remain in the territory under temporary protection arrangements or until the circumstances preventing a removal order from being carried out no longer apply, with the exception of visas and residence authorisations issued during the period required to determine the responsible Member State as established in this Regulation or during examination of an application for asylum or an application for a residence permit” |
Headnote:
The Court found that Article 4 had been violated because of delay by national authorities in formally recognising that the Applicant was a victim of human trafficking, and because of failings of the police and the courts in prosecuting the individuals suspected of being responsible. Further, Articles 6(1) and 13 had been violated because of delays in the length of criminal proceedings against those individuals, and because the Applicant did not have recourse to an effective remedy to complain about this.
Facts:
Decision & reasoning:
Article 4
Following its decision in Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia, the Court first emphasised that Article 4 imposes three positive obligations on states, and then considered whether each of these had been breached. Firstly, states are required to adopt an effective legal and regulatory framework, offering protection to actual and potential victims of trafficking. The Court found no breach in this regard, because there is national legislation in place criminalising trafficking and offering protection to victims. It was also added that Greece has ratified the UN Trafficking Protocol and the CoE Convention on Action against Human Trafficking, and has transposed the relevant EU Directive (2011/36).
Secondly, states must take protective operational measures. The Court identified a breach here due to the delay in formally recognising that the Applicant was a victim of human trafficking. Specifically, nine months had lapsed between the date on which the Applicant explicitly informed the authorities of her situation, and the conferral of victim status.
Thirdly, states must conduct effective investigations and criminal proceedings. The Court also found a breach in this respect, identifying multiple failings by both the courts and police. The Applicant’s first criminal complaint was rejected before an important witness testimony, corroborating her situation, had been included in the record, owing to negligence by the police. Once included, the competent authorities failed to re-open proceedings, leaving this up to the Applicant herself. There was also a long period of inactivity before criminal proceedings were brought. Similarly, the police investigation had been slow and inefficient. They had failed to search other addresses mentioned by the Applicant and did not attempt to gather additional information.
Articles 6(1) & 13
The Court found that delays in the length of proceedings, amounting to two and a half years from the time the Applicant joined proceedings as a civil party, were unreasonable, constituting a breach of Article 6(1). In addition, it held that Article 13 had been violated because the Greek legal system did not provide an effective remedy for the Applicant to complain about the length of proceedings.
Outcome:
The Court found that Articles 4, 6(1) and 13 had been violated.
Observations/comments:
There is limited case law from the ECtHR on Article 4 ECHR. This decision follows, notably, Siliadin v France, Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia, C. N. and V. v France, C. N. v UK and M. and others v Italy and Bulgaria. Within this context, it offers an important clarification on the positive obligations owed by states towards actual and potential victims of human trafficking.
This summary was written by Georgia Kandunias, GDL student at BPP University.
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Cited National Legislation:
Cited Cases:
| Cited Cases |
| ECtHR - Kudla v Poland [GC], Application No. 30210/96 |
| ECtHR - Manoussakis and Others v. Greece, Application No. 18748/91 |
| ECtHR- Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, Application No. 46477/99 |
| Vallianatos and Others v. Greece [GC], nos. 29381/09 and 32684/09 |
| ECtHR - Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, Application no. 25965/04, 10 October 2010 |
| ECtHR - Siliadin v. France (no. 73316/01) |
| Perez v. France (no. 47287/99) |
| ECtHR - Doğan and Others v. Turkey (nos. 8803-8811/02, 8813/02 and 8815-8819/02) |
| ECtHR - Dink v Turkey, nos 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09 and 7124/09 |
| ECtHR - McKerr v. the United Kingdom (no. 28883/95, ECHR 4 May 2001) |
| ECtHR - Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy [GC], no. 23458/02, §§ 179-80, ECtHR 24 March 2011 |
| ECtHR – M. and others v. Italy and Bulgaria, 31 July 2012, 40020/03 |
| ECtHR - Logothetis and Others v. Greece, no. 740/13, §§ 37-48, 25 September 2014 |
| ECtHR – Amadayev v Russia, Application No. 18114/06, 3 July 2014 |
| ECtHR - Chapman v Belgium, Application No. 39619/06, 5 March 2013 |
| ECtHR - Glykantzi v Greece, Application No. 40150/09, 30 October 2012 |
| ECtHR – Gongadzé v Ukraine, Application No. 34056/02, 8 November 2005 |
| ECtHR – Gorou v Greece (No. 2) (GC), Application No. 12686/03. 20 March 2009 |
| ECtHR – Jarnevic and Profit v Greece, Application No. 28338/02, 7 April 2005 |
| ECtHR - Marikanos v Greece, Application No. 49282/99, 29 March 2001 |
| ECtHR – Okkali v Turkey, Application No. 52067/99, 17 October 2006 |
| ECtHR – Parlak, Aktürk and Yay v Turkey, Application Nos. 24942/94, 24943/94 and 25125/94, 9 January 2001 |
| ECtHR – Taymuskhanovy v Russia, Application No. 11528/07, 16 December 2010 |
Other sources:
1926 Slavery Convention.