J.B. v. Greece, Application no. 54796/16, 26 May 2026

Facts:

The applicant, a Syrian national of Armenian origin and Christian denomination, left Syria in April 2015 due to the armed conflict and alleged risks of persecution related to his ethnic and religious background. He subsequently travelled to Türkiye, where he remained for approximately one year under temporary protection. On 7 May 2016, he arrived in Greece and was arrested on Lesvos on grounds of unlawful entry. On 9 May 2016, he expressed his intention to apply for international protection.

The asylum authorities rejected the application as inadmissible on the basis that Türkiye constituted a “first country of asylum” or a “safe third country”. This decision was upheld on appeal by the competent administrative body. The applicant subsequently sought judicial review before the administrative courts, which dismissed his claim. A further appeal was lodged before the Supreme Administrative Court and remained pending at the time of the latest submissions on 1 August 2025. 

In parallel, removal proceedings were initiated before the competent police and administrative courts concerning the expulsion decision, its suspension, and related detention. The applicant was detained at the Mytilene police station pending removal from 3 June to 22 July 2016. The application for annulment of the removal decision was subsequently dismissed by the domestic courts. Following his release, the applicant left Greece and travelled to France, where he was granted refugee status.

The applicant lodged an application before the European Court of Human Rights, alleging a risk of ill-treatment upon removal to Türkiye, including the risk of onward refoulement to Syria, deficiencies in the examination of his application for international protection, and conditions of detention incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention, as well as the lack of an effective remedy under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3.

Decision & reasoning:

Alleged violation of Article 3 ECHR (risk of ill-treatment if removal to Türkiye)

The Court first examined the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the alleged risk of ill-treatment in the event of the applicant’s removal to Türkiye and subsequent onward removal to Syria. It noted that the applicant, in the meantime, had been granted refugee status in France. In these circumstances, the Court held that the alleged risk of exposure to treatment contrary to Article 3 had ceased to exist, with the result that the continuation of the examination of this complaint was no longer justified. (paras. 61-64)

Alleged violation of Article 13 in conjunction with article 3 (effective remedy in asylum proceedings)

(i) Victim status and applicability of Article 13

The Court held that the absence of a continuing risk under Article 3 following the applicant’s recognition as a refugee in France did not affect his victim status under Article 13. It found that the applicant had an arguable claim under Article 3, as he consistently raised fears linked to his religion and ethnic origin and submitted supporting material concerning risks in Türkiye and potential refoulement to Syria. It therefore declared the complaint under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 admissible. (112-115)

(ii) Examination of the risk assessment and reliance on assurances

The Court reiterated that in cases of removal to a third country, the State must carry out a thorough and individualised assessment of whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would face a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3, taking into account both the general situation of the receiving country and the applicant’s individual circumstances. (102-103) Where diplomatic or other assurances are provided by the receiving State, these constitute a relevant factor in the assessment; however, they are not in themselves sufficient and must be examined in practice to determine whether they offer a reliable and effective guarantee against the risk of ill-treatment. (para. 111)

The Court held that general assurances that are part of an agreement and are implemented through ongoing institutional cooperation may suffice to dispel a real risk of ill-treatment. It clarified that assurances are not themselves sufficient to ensure adequate protection and that an individual assessment of the applicant’s circumstances is necessary. The Court found that the assurances were not relied upon in isolation but formed part of a broader evidentiary framework under the EU-Türkiye Statement, supported by country information. Taken together, this material was considered sufficiently reliable to disprove a real risk of ill-treatment, and that the domestic authorities were entitled to rely on it. (paras. 128–130)

(iii) Procedural safeguards and effectiveness of the remedy

The Court considered that the applicant was interviewed by trained staff and that the involvement of EASO personnel rather than Greek State employees did not adversely affect the conduct of the procedure, noting that he received the relevant information with the assistance of an interpreter and that, although he did not have legal assistance at the initial administrative stage, he subsequently obtained legal representation before the domestic courts and was able to effectively exercise his rights by lodging applications for annulment and suspension. (para. 132)

On this basis, the Court found that the domestic authorities had conducted a sufficiently thorough examination of the applicant’s claims, supported by a wide range of country information, reasoned responses to his arguments, and a reliable set of assurances and monitoring mechanisms under the EU–Türkiye Statement. It therefore concluded that the applicant had access to effective procedural safeguards and found no violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention. (paras. 133–135)

Alleged violation of Article 3 (conditions of detention pending removal)

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. (paras. 142-145).

Outcome:

The Court did not find a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 as regards the examination of the applicant’s asylum claim and the removal procedure;

It found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention.

It held that the respondent State is to pay the applicant an amount of EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage.