ECtHR – Amadou v Greece, Application No. 37991/11, 4 February 2016

Facts:

Decision & reasoning:

Article 3

The Court held that the Applicant had been subject to inhuman and degrading treatment throughout his detention and upon his release. In relation to the detention, the Court relied on previous case law concerning the application of Article 3 to both general conditions of detention, and the specific conditions at Fylakio and Aspropyrgos in 2010 and 2011 (Mahammad and others v Greece; F. H. v Greece; Khuroshvili v Greece). It also relied on reports on detention conditions at the two centres by the UNHCR and the CPT.

As for the Applicant’s situation upon release, the Court relied on its decision in M. S. S. v Belgium and Greece, where it found a violation of Article 3 in relation to an asylum seeker living in extreme poverty. In the present case, it noted that the Greek authorities had failed to respond to the Applicant’s request for social support. Given the obligations under the Reception Conditions Directive, only a diligent examination of the Applicant’s asylum claim would have been able to bring his situation to an end, and his claim was still pending three years after it had been filed. The Court therefore found that the Applicant found himself in a degrading situation contrary to Article 3, which was caused by the Greek authorities.

Article 5(4)

Likewise, the Court held that the Applicant’s rights under Article 5(4) had been violated owing to shortcomings in domestic law with regard to the effectiveness of judicial review of his detention pending deportation. The Court highlighted the ambiguity of the domestic provision (Article 76, Law 3386/2005), which stated that the administrative tribunal could only review detention ordered on the grounds of flight risk or threat to public safety, and therefore did not provide an express right to judicial review. Although the provision had subsequently been modified to include review of the legality of detention and/or its extension (Law 3900/2010), at the time of the Applicant’s detention between July and November 2010 this modification had not yet entered into force. As a result, the Court was entitled to apply case law concerning the incompatibility of the earlier provision with Article 5(4) (Herman and Serazadishvili v Greece).

Outcome:

The Court found that both Articles 3 and 5(4) had been violated.

Observations/comments:

This summary was written by Georgia Kandunias, GDL student at BPP University. 

Other sources:

- Report to the Government of Greece on the visit to Greece carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 19 to 27 January 2011.

- Report of findings from the field visit of the Special Reporter for the National Commission for Human Rights on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.