Case summaries

The European Court of Human Rights held that the expulsion of an Eritrean deserter to Eritrea would give rise to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

The case involved two Uzbek nationals who were extradited to Uzbekistan by Turkey after Uzbekistan claimed they had committed terror-related crimes, while the applicants countered that they were political dissidents and would face ill-treatment and torture if returned. Despite the Court ordering interim measures to defer, Turkey extradited both and they were sentenced to terms of imprisonment. The Court found no violations of Art. 2, 3, or 6, but did find a violation of Art. 34 for Turkey’s non-compliance with the interim measures. 

When assessing an application for refugee status, what is important is whether the acts of persecution were carried out for the reasons identified in the Geneva Convention, and not whether or to what extent the victim of persecution can be identified with those reasons.

Fear of persecution within the meaning of Article 1A(2) of the Geneva Convention need not mean that persecution is certain or even probable. Recognition of refugee status is already justified where there are reasonable grounds for asserting the possibility of persecution. “Possibility” means that persecution may take place although it is neither certain nor probable, and the “reasonable grounds” requirement indicates the need to establish real and objective evidence of the risk of persecution. The plausibility of the threat is shown by the situation in the country of origin of the person applying for refugee status as well as that person’s experience to date.

The present case, which ended in a friendly settlement between the parties, concerned the allegations of a Russian national that he would be exposed to ill-treatment if expelled to Russia.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the proposed expulsion of a Tanzanian national from the United Kingdom to Tanzania will expose him to inhuman and degrading treatment, in violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

Application to give suspensive effect to a decision by the Minister for Public Order 

This case concerned deportation of a recognized refugee (Articles 32 and 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees) after a conviction for a criminal offence under common law. 

Immediate deportation would expose the applicant to the risk of suffering irreparable harm in the event that his application for annulment is successful. Because of the severity of that harm, moves to deport him must be given suspensive effect until there has been a final decision on his application for annulment, even though the decision to deport him was motivated by the protection of public order.

The case also considered ending the applicant's detention andreturning the refugee residence permit, which had been withdrawn, to the applicant. 

The case involved a Sri Lankan asylum seeker whose application was rejected in Germany, and upon seeking asylum in the UK, was rejected on the basis of the Dublin Convention and that his application corresponded to Germany. The Court found no breach of a Convention obligation from the UK by its decision to remove him to Germany.               

The case involved the proposed removal of a convicted alien drug courier dying of AIDS to his country of origin, St Kitts, where he had no access to proper medical treatment, nor accommodation, family, moral or financial support. The Court found that his deportation would amount to a breach of Art. 3 obligations by the UK. 

This case involved a Somali refugee in Austria whose refugee status was ordered as forfeited after a criminal conviction. Because of the absolute nature of Art. 3, the Court found his criminal conviction immaterial and that he still faced a serious risk of persecution in Somalia, therefore Austria would breach its obligations under Art. 3 if his deportation was executed. 

This case involved the UK’s attempted deportation of an Indian citizen and leader of the Sikh separatist movement who lived in the UK and was allegedly a national security threat. Because of the risk of ill-treatment, the Court found the UK would breach Art. 3 if he were deported to India, in conjunction with a violation of Art. 13. Because he was not able to review the lawfulness of his prolonged detention, the Court also found a violation of Art. 5 (4).