Case summaries

The Court found a violation of Articles 3 and 5(4) ECHR in relation to the Applicant’s detention conditions at Fylakio and Aspropyrgos, and the shortcomings of domestic law in relation to the judicial review of his detention. 

The detention and proposed expulsion of a Kyrgyzstani national are declared by the European Court of Human rights to constitute a violation of Article 3 and Article 5 of the Convention. The expulsion would be a violation of Article 3 due to the discrimination, persecution and human rights abuses against the ethnic Uzbek group, to which the applicant belongs.

The mistreatment of the applicant during detention and a lack of investigation into the mistreatment constituted a violation of both the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3.

The deprivation of liberty during detention could not be deemed lawful under Article 5 as domestic law was not deemed foreseeable in its application.  

Due to systemic deficiencies in the Maltese asylum system, a responsibility on the part of the German authorities to examine the asylum application exists by virtue of the sovereignty clause in the Dublin III Regulation.

In light of the Court’s previous jurisprudence relating to the conditions at Soufli detention centre, the Greek government has violated Article 3 ECHR on account of overpopulation and poor hygiene conditions, has violated Article 5 § 1 ECHR by not taking steps to carry out the expulsion in the five months of the applicant’s detention and did not provide an effective judicial remedy to challenge his detention pending expulsion, in violation of Article 5 § 4 ECHR.

The Court found a violation of Article 3 in relation to a subsequent application for asylum, which had been rejected on the basis that it contained no new elements indicating that the Applicants ran a real risk of being subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment on deportation to Russia. Because new information had in fact been provided, the national authorities were under an obligation to thoroughly review the information in order to assure themselves that the Applicants’ rights under Article 3 would be safeguarded.

This case is concerned with whether an appeal against the lawfulness of an asylum applicant’s detention was allowed. Thus the prejudicial question was formulated questioning whether the measure under article 8(3)(a-b) recast Reception Conditions Directive is valid with regards to the provisions in Article 6 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (CFREU) subject to Article 5 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The extension of a transfer time limit in accordance with Article 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 (“Dublin II”) does not create a new decision to transfer the Applicant to the responsible Member State, but has the effect of maintaining in force the initial transfer decision.

A judgment which cancels a detention measure based on Article L. 551-1 of the French Code for the Entry and Residence of Foreigners in France and of Asylum Right (“FCERFFAR”) on the grounds that the extension of the transfer time limit has not been notified to the Applicant in accordance with the formal requirements provided for in the initial decision to transfer, must be void.

The case shows how the legal amendment which entered into force on 13 November 2015 changed the situation of asylum seekers by deleting the legal basis for detention formulated as “preventing from abusing the asylum proceedings”. Instead, article 87 (1) (3) of the Law on granting protection to foreigners in the territory of the Republic of Poland reflects article 8 (3)(d) of the recast Reception Directive and states that an applicant can be detained in order to issue or enforce the return decision if towards the applicant there is an ongoing return proceedings or there was a return decision issued and the applicant already had the opportunity to access the asylum procedure, and there are reasonable grounds to believe that the application was merely made in order to delay or frustrate the enforcement of the return decision.

The Border Guard relied on this provision when prolonging the detention of the applicant in the present case arguing it with the need to secure the proceedings regarding international protection. In the opinion of the Court, this provision cannot be used in the situation where the applicant is not subject to return proceedings and no such decision has been issued so far. That is why he should be released.

Taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the Court found that the detention conditions of the applicant did not amount to a breach of Article 3 ECHR. However, Malta’s domestic law remained in violation of Article 5 § 4 ECHR as it did not provide an effective remedy to challenge the lawfulness of the detention. The applicant’s detention after being granted subsidiary protection for a further 5 days was a violation of Article 5 § 1 ECHR.

This case is concerned with whether the Secretary of State for Justice has discharged or breached his duty of care with regards to the risk of refoulement in an asylum application.