Ecrthr case summaries

The Court examines the individuals’ circumstances and finds that the appointment with the French authorities to register and assess their asylum cases within a three-month period, coupled with the possibility for the applicants to stay in a foster home at night, access education, healthcare and meals provided by organisations during the day, cannot amount to treatment prohibited under the Convention.

After being notified of his return decision, set to take place on the same day, the applicant requested an interim measure on Article 3 ECHR grounds in the morning but was nonetheless expelled to Morocco in the afternoon. The Court found no violation of Article 3, regarding the applicant’s expulsion to Morocco, by taking into account subsequent information. It found a violation of Article 34 of the Convention, owing to the fact that the applicant had no sufficient time to file a request to the Court, hence running the risk back then of being potentially subjected to treatment prohibited by the Convention.

Article 3 has not been violated in a case concerning the deportation of an individual who had been convicted of a terrorism-related charge to Morocco. However the ECtHR acknowledges that ill-treatment and torture by the police and the security forces still occur, particularly in the case of persons suspected of terrorism or of endangering State security.

The applicant, an Algerian national convicted in France for terrorism and banned from entering French territory in 2006, was sent back to Algeria in 2014, on the day he was notified of the rejection of his asylum claim and of the issuance of his return order. The Court found that the French authorities violated Article 34 of the Convention by carrying out the applicant’s transfer despite the Court’s interim measure. It also found that France violated Article 3, in the light of the general information regarding the situation of people suspected of international terrorism in Algeria.

The ECtHR ruled that the detention of a Syrian national was unlawful as his return to Syria was impracticable, which the authorities should have known at that time. It was incumbent on the domestic authorities to consider alternative measures in respect of the applicant. The applicant did not have the benefit of an examination of the lawfulness of his detention to a sufficient degree. Therefore, there was a violation of Articles 5(1) and (4) ECHR.

The ECtHR also ruled that his detention at the Zografou police station led to a violation of his rights under Article 3 ECHR, since it lacked the amenities required for prolonged periods of detention.

The detention of three Sri Lankan nationals on grounds of public order before their removal from Cyprus was found to be lawful by the Court. However, the Court found that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their detention, in violation of Article 5(4) ECHR.

The European Court of Human Rights finds Russian authorities violated an American national’s Article 8 right to respect for family life, as it had compelled her to leave Russia, where her husband and minor child were living.

The Court ruled that, even where national security was at stake, deportation measures should be subject to some form of adversarial proceedings before an independent authority or court. In this case, the Macedonian courts failed to scrutinise whether an expulsion order was issued on genuine national security grounds, violating Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention.

The restriction of the right to reside in a country may entail a violation of Article 8 ECHR, when creating disproportionate effects on the individuals’ private life. States should provide effective and accessible means to protect the right to respect for private and family life.  

The ECtHR held that the detention for almost six months of a Russian national and her three children in a detention centre in Poland amounted to a violation of Article 8, as even in the light of the risk that the family might abscond, the authorities failed to provide sufficient reasons to justify the detention for such a length of time.