Case summaries
The European Court of Human Rights held that the expulsion of an Algerian national from Slovakia to Algeria, in contempt of an interim measure issued by the Court, was in violation of Articles 3, 13 and 34 of the Convention.
An asylum application within the meaning of the Asylum Procedures Directive, Article 2, introductory paragraph and Article 2(b), has been made if a foreigner notifies the authorities that he would like to apply for asylum. The provision of the Foreigners Act under which a foreigner who has been declared undesirable has no right to remain is in breach of Article 7 of the Asylum Procedures Directive.
If access is denied at the border, the foreigner may in principle be detained (after an asylum application is made at the border), if detention 'proves necessary' within the meaning of Article 7(3) of the Reception Conditions Directive.
The case concerns the unlawfulness of detention in Hungary of two Ivorian nationals pending the asylum proceedings.
The case concerns the extension of periods of detention while awaiting removal from Belgian territory with respect to an Iraqi citizen having served his sentence and having submitted a number of asylum applications in Belgium.
The case concerned the administrative detention of a family for two weeks at the Rouen-Oissel centre in France pending their removal to Kazakhstan.
The case concerned the proposed expulsion of the Applicant to Lebanon. He argued that it would expose him to a risk of ill‑treatment or death, that he did not have an effective remedy in respect of his claim in that regard, and that his detention pending deportation had been too lengthy and unjustified.
When detained under conditions that constitute the notion of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of article 3 ECHR, a person is not criminally responsible for committing the unlawful act of escaping custody.
The case relates to the detention and proposed deportation from Belgium of an irregularly present Cameroonian national suffering from HIV.
The Court unanimously found that her deportation to Cameroon would not violate Article 2 or Article 3 ECHR. However, she had not been able to effectively challenge the deportation decision, in violation of Article 13.
The Court found a violation of Article 3 based on the lack of appropriate treatment while she was detained. Further, the additional period of detention following interim measures by the Court preventing her removal, was unlawful and violated Article 5(1)f).
The case concerned whether the Returns Directive precludesnational legislation providing for the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment on a third-country national on the sole ground of their illegal entry or residence in national territory.