ECtHR - R. T. v Greece, Application No. 5124/11, 11 February 2016
| Country of applicant: | Iran |
| Court name: | European Court of Human Rights (First section) |
| Date of decision: | 11-02-2016 |
| Citation: | ECtHR – R. T. v Greece, Application No. 5124/11, 11 February 2016 |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Effective access to procedures
{ return; } );"
>
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. |
|
Detention
{ return; } );"
>
Description
"Restriction on freedom of movement through confinement that is ordered by an administrative or judicial authority(ies) in order that another procedure may be implemented. In an EU asylum context, this means confinement of an asylum seeker by a Member State within a particular place, where the applicant is deprived of his or her freedom of movement. This may occur during any stage of or throughout the asylum process, from the time an initial application is made up to the point of removal of an unsuccessful asylum seeker. In an EU Return context, Member States may only detain or keep in a detention facility a third-country national who is the subject of return procedures in order to prepare the return and/or carry out the removal process, in particular when: (a) there is a risk of absconding; or (b) the third-country national concerned avoids or hampers the preparation of return or the removal process. Any detention shall be for as short a period as possible and only maintained as long as removal arrangements are in progress and executed with due diligence." |
|
Effective remedy (right to)
{ return; } );"
>
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.” |
|
Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
{ return; } );"
>
Description
A form of serious harm for the purposes of the granting of subsidiary protection. The Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in Celibici defined cruel or inhuman treatment as ‘an intentional act or omission, that is an act which, judged objectively, is deliberate and not accidental, that causes serious mental or physical suffering or injury or constitutes a serious attack on human dignity.’ “Ill-treatment means all forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including corporal punishment, which deprives the individual of its physical and mental integrity." |
|
Non-refoulement
{ return; } );"
>
Description
A core principle of international Refugee Law that prohibits States from returning refugees in any manner whatsoever to countries or territories in which their lives or freedom may be threatened. Note: The principle of non-refoulement is a part of customary international law and is therefore binding on all States, whether or not they are parties to the Geneva Convention. |
|
Procedural guarantees
{ return; } );"
>
Description
“In the interests of a correct recognition of those persons in need of protection … every applicant should, subject to certain exceptions, have an effective access to procedures, the opportunity to cooperate and properly communicate with the competent authorities so as to present the relevant facts of his/her case and sufficient procedural guarantees to pursue his/her case throughout all stages of the procedure.” Procedures should satisfy certain basic requirements, which reflect the special situation of the applicant for refugee status, and which would ensure that the applicant is provided with certain essential guarantees. Some of these basic requirements are set out in on p.31 of the UNHCR Handbook as well as the APD Arts. 10, 17 and 34 and include: a personal interview, the right to legal assistance and representation, specific guarantees for vulnerable persons and regarding the examination procedure, and those guarantees set out in the Asylum Procedures Directive. |
|
Withdrawal of protection application
{ return; } );"
>
Description
The actions by which the applicant for asylum terminates the procedures initiated by the submission of his/her application for asylum, in accordance with national law, either explicitly (per Art 19 APD) or tacitly (per Art.20 APD). |
|
Refugee Status
{ return; } );"
>
Description
The recognition by a Member State of a third-country national or stateless person as a refugee. |
Headnote:
The Court found that there had been a violation of Article 3 in relation to detention conditions at Tychero. There was no violation of Article 5(1) insofar as the detention was not arbitrary and was in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law, but there was a violation of Article 5(4) in relation to the ineffectiveness of the judicial review of detention conditions. Further, there was a violation of Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 3, because the Greek authorities had deported the Applicant to Turkey, without verifying whether his asylum claim was still pending.
Facts:
The Applicant is an Iranian national of Kurdish origin. He left his country of origin as a child, fearing for his safety as a result of the political activities of his father. On reaching Iraq, he was placed under a UNHCR protection programme. He arrived in Greece in October 2010 and shortly thereafter was arrested for illegal entry and detained at the Tychero border post. On 3 November 2010, an order was made for him to be deported to Turkey and detained for a maximum of 6 months in the meantime, on the grounds that he posed a flight risk.
The Applicant was able to formally lodge an asylum application on 25 November 2010. In January 2011, he challenged the conditions and lawfulness of his detention before the administrative court at Alexandropouli. He argued that the conditions violated his rights under Article 3, given the overcrowding; dirtiness; limited space for sleeping, walking and physical activity; unavailability of hygiene products and clothing; lack of heating; limited communications with the outside world; and the impossibility of accessing doctors and psychological support. He also argued that his detention was illegal under Article 5, because the authorities would not be able to examine his application within the three-month legal time limit. These complaints were rejected by the administrative court.
On 10 January 2011, the Applicant was ‘inadvertently’ deported to Turkey as a result of an administrative error. The Iranian authorities having failed to identify the Applicant, as required by the Turkish authorities, the Applicant was returned to Greece on 24 January and placed back in detention at Tychero. On 1 February, he challenged the order for his detention and expulsion to Iran. He maintained that he would be at risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 for political reasons in Iran. At the same time, he requested the facilitation of his return to Iraq so that he could attend the funeral of his five-year-old son, who had died at the end of January. As a result, the Applicant was released with an order to leave the territory within 30 days. His asylum application was also rejected because he had signed a form on 27 January expressing his desire to return ‘to his country’.
Decision & reasoning:
Outcome:
The Court found that there had been a violation of Articles 3, Article 13 read with Article 3, and Articles 5(1) and 5(4).
Observations/comments:
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 - Shamayev v Georgia (April 2005) (Application no. 36378/02) |
| ECtHR - Müslim v Turkey (Application no. 53566/99) |
| ECtHR - T.I. v United Kingdom (Application no. 43844/98) |
| ECtHR - Mooren v. Germany [GC], Application No. 11364/03 |
| ECtHR - Bati and Others v Turkey, Application No. 33097/96 and 57834/00 |
| ECtHR - Kudla v Poland [GC], Application No. 30210/96 |
| ECtHR - Baranowski v Poland, Application No. 28358/95 |
| ECtHR - Dougoz v. Greece, Application No. 40907/98 |
| ECtHR - Peers v. Greece, Application No. 28524/95 |
| ECtHR - Riad and Idiab v. Belgium, Application Nos. 29787/03 and 29810/03 |
| ECtHR - M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece [GC], Application No. 30696/09 |
| ECtHR - Akdivar v Turkey, Application No. 21893/93 |
| ECtHR - B.M. v. Greece, Application No. 53608/11 |
| ECtHR - Bygylashvili v. Greece, Application No. 58164/10 |
| ECtHR - R.U. v. Greece, Application No. 2237/08 |
| ECtHR - Saadi v. Royaume-Uni [GC], Application No. 13229/03 |
| ECtHR - Rahimi v. Greece, Application No. 8687/08 |
| ECtHR - Gebremedhin (Gaberamadhien) v France, Application No. 25389/05 |
| ECtHR - De los Santos and de la Cruz v. Greece, Applications Nos. 2134/12 and 2161/12 |
| ECtHR - Herman and Serazadishvili v. Greece, Applications Nos. 26418/11 and 45884/11 |
| ECtHR - Barjamaj v. Greece, Application No 36657/11 |
| ECtHR - Khuroshvili v. Greece, Application No 58165/10 (UP) |
| ECtHR- Kaja v. Greece, no. 32927/03, 27 July 2006 |
| ECtHR- Horshill v. Greece, Application no. 70427/11, 1 November 2013 |
| ECtHR - Lin v. Greece, no.58158/10 |
| ECtHR - Tabesh v. Greece, Application no. 8256/07, 26 November 2009 |
| ECtHR- A.A. v. Greece, Application no. 12186/08, 22 July 2010 |
| ECtHR- S.D. v. Greece, Application no. 53541/07, 11 September 2009 |
| ECtHR - Čonka v Belgium, Application no. 51564/99, 5 February 2002 |
| ECtHR - Jabari v. Turkey, Application no. 40035/98, 11 July 2000 |
| ECtHR - Kalashnikov v. Russia, No. 47095/99 , § 102, ECHR 2002-VI |
| ECtHR - Chahal v. The United Kingdom, Application No. 22414/93, 15 November 1996 |
| ECtHR - Ahmet Özkan and Others v. Turkey (no. 21689/93, ECHR 6 April 2004) |
| ECtHR – Vuckovic and others v Serbia, Application No. 17153/11 |
| ECtHR - A.F. v Greece (no 53709/11, 13 June 2013 |
| ECtHR - Grigorievskikh v Russia, Application No. 22/03, 9 April 2009 |
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.
Findings of the National Commission for Human Rights and the Mediator of the Republic.