Case summaries

  • My search
  • Keywords
    1
Reset
ECtHR - Baysakov and others v. Ukraine, Application no. 54131/08, 18 may 2010
Country of applicant: Kazakhstan

A potential violation of Art. 3 of the Convention can be found when a person risks to be extradited to a country where practice of ill-treatment of detainees are reported by reliable sources, notwithstanding possible assurances by the involved public prosecutors of that country.

Given the irreversible and particular serious nature of the harm which might occur if risks relevant under art. 3 of the Convention materialise, an effective remedy to avoid such a harm within the meaning of art. 13 of the Convention requires both an independent and rigorous scrutiny of a claim, and a remedy with automatic suspensive effect. 

Date of decision: 18-05-2010
ECtHR - Mikolenko v. Estonia, Application no. 10664/05, 8 October 2009
Country of applicant: Russia

The basis for  a person’s detention under  5(1)(f) of the Convention  is legally untenable when there is a lack  of  a  realistic  prospect  of  the applicant’s expulsion  and  the domestic authorities fail to conduct the expulsion proceedings with due diligence.

Date of decision: 08-01-2010
ECtHR - Cyprus v. Turkey , Application no. 25781/94, 10 May 2001
Country of applicant: Cyprus

Turkey’s continual and severe failure to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of disappearance of Greek-Cypriots, who were at the time under the control of its agents, constituted a violation of Articles 2,3 and 5 of the ECHR. The circumscription of freedom of movement, religion and association of Greek-Cypriots in Northern Greece constituted violations of Articles 9 and 10 and the continual violation of Article 1 Protocol 1 by virtue of preventing Greek Cypriot owners from having access to, control and use of their property was also found by the Court.

Date of decision: 10-05-2001
ECtHR - Chahal v. The United Kingdom, Application No. 22414/93, 15 November 1996
Country of applicant: India, United Kingdom

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). 

Date of decision: 15-11-1996