Case summaries

The case concerns an expulsion order from Romanian territory issued against a Turkish applicant, and his placement in an administrative detention centre

The Court found that there was no violation of article 5(4) ECHR as the applicant had been given the opportunity to challenge the legality of his detention

However, it found that article 5(1)f) ECHR had been violated as the applicant had been detained for a further three months after the rejection of his asylum claim. 

There is no basis to differentiate between the treatment of asylum seekers depending on whether they applied for asylum straight after crossing the border or after being placed in a detention centre. If a third country national applied for asylum from a detention centre, they can be released on the basis of article 88 section 2 of the Law on granting protection to foreigners in the territory of Poland, which states that asylum seekers shall not be placed in a detention centre, if there is a presumption that they were subject to violence.

In case of a presumption that a person is a victim of violence there is no need for “unequivocal evidence” for this legal condition.

The court cannot resign from an expert opinion if establishing a relevant fact for the case requires it. As a result the court cannot reject all the opinions or conclusions of the only opinion in the case and adopt its own view to the contrary. If the Court of Appeal had any doubts regarding the available psychologist’s opinion they should have requested the psychologist to complete the opinion or called a new expert.

Where negative reports regarding the reception conditions and inhuman or degrading treatment in a first country of asylum indicate that an Applicant may not be safe in such a country, an Applicant’s request to remain in a Member State pending a decision on their right to remain must be given the benefit of doubt and outweigh the public’s interest in immediate enforcement of the ordered transfer.

The UK Court of Appeal held that the Secretary of State’s practice of detaining people under the Detained Fast Track (DFT) system while they await an appeal for a refusal of an application for asylum is unlawful. Although permitted by a policy document, an avenue for appeal within the DFT and its procedures were neither clear nor transparent, and there was no possible justification for detaining people while awaiting an appeal. 

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has held that the detention of an unaccompanied minor at Soufli border posts for over 5 months constituted a breach of Article 3 of the ECHR as well as a violation of the right to an effective remedy and the right to liberty and security.

The European Court of Human Rights has held Turkey to be in violation of the applicant’s right to liberty as well as material reception conditions during his detention in Kumkapı Removal Centre. The Court further held that the applicant had not benefited from an effective remedy by which to complain of the detention conditions.

The ECtHR has unanimously held that Belgium, in extraditing a Tunisian national to the US, where he was under prosecution on charges linked to Al-Qaeda, without any regard to the interim Rule 39 measure issued by the Court suspending the extradition, had violated both Article 3 and Article 34 (right to individual applications)of the ECHR.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has held that the conditions of various detention centres in Greece, where the applicant was placed, along with the living conditions after his release, constituted degrading treatment and thus a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The European Court of Human Rights has held that the detention conditions in the Police Directors of the Aliens Directorate of Thessaloniki and Attica Aliens Directorate, where a Georgian national was held, amounted to inhumane treatment. However, the Court declined to accept that the individual’s right to liberty and security along with his right to judicially review the legality of his detention had been infringed.

The Respondent erred in detaining the Applicant under § 88a (1)(a) point 1 of Act No 404/2011 Coll. on the residence of aliens and amending certain other Acts in proceedings relating to administrative expulsion to the Ukraine, despite being aware of the Applicant’s intention to apply for asylum. The Respondent also incorrectly assessed whether Ukraine is a safe third country as he failed to take into account recent information on the current situation in Ukraine. Moreover, in assessing the risk of absconding, the Respondent asked improper questions. As such the Respondent's conduct violates principles of good governance.