Case summaries
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.
When determining whether the maximum period for detention pending removal under the Returns Directive is exceeded, the following periods must be included: (1) periods of detention prior to the application of the Directive by the Member State; (2) periods of detention pending an asylum claim where no decision is made to transfer the individual from ‘detention pending removal’ to ‘detention pending asylum claim’; (3) periods of detention pending judicial review of the deportation. In addition, the ‘reasonableness’ of the prospects of removal must take account of whether removal can take place within the maximum period of detention time, and once the maximum period is exceeded, the individual can no longer be detained for the purpose of removal.
This case related to the conditions of detention at the Thessaloniki Aliens’ Police Directorate in Greece, the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention pending deportation and whether there was had been an effective judicial remedy to challenge his detention.
The Court found that there was a violation of Article 3 as the conditions at the detention centre were inhuman and degrading. The length of his detention violated Article 5(1) as it exceeded the time considered reasonable for the purpose of carrying out his deportation, given the Greek authorities lack of diligence. Domestic law in Greece was incompatible with the safeguards provided for in Article 5(4).
The applicants, who had been recognised as refugees by UNHCR, faced risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 upon Turkey’s proposed deportation of them to either Iran or Iraq. They had no effective opportunity to make an asylum claim or challenge their deportation. Further their detention had no legal justification and they had been unable to challenge its lawfulness. The Court found violations of Article 3, 13, 5(1), 5(2) and 5(4).
The European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Article 3 with regards to the applicant’s detention conditions in Soufli and Attiki (Petrou Rali). It further found a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 due to the unlawful detention of the applicant and the lack of remedies to challenge it.
When a decision on detention is being made it is necessary to consider if the person is a refugee (asylum seeker) and subsequently if expulsion is feasible, and therefore the only permissible purpose of detention.
The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 5 para 1 (f), 4 and 5 with regards to some of the eleven applicants in this case, who were detained as suspected terrorists by UK authorities.
The applicant was expelled from Russia on the basis of his religious activities and separated from his infant son as a result. While Russia attempted to justify this on the ground of national security, the Court held that sufficient evidence was not provided and that Articles 5, 8, 9 and 38 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 had been violated.
The High Court considered the duty to inquire before authorising detention and fast tracking of asylum seekers and the liability of the state for the failures of contractors and sub contractors.
The European Court of Human Rights found that the expulsion of a Turkish national from Bulgaria violated his right to respect for private and family life (Article 8) and his right to an effective remedy (Article 13). What is more, it held that the Bulgarian authorities did not abide with the procedural safeguards relating to the expulsion of nationals.