Case summaries

The seven day detention of a ‘temporarily admitted’ asylum seeker under the fast-track procedure was non-arbitrary and consistent with Article 5(1), but the 76 hour delay in providing the individual with the real reasons for his detention did not satisfy the promptness requirement of Article 5(2).

It was decided that it was not necessary to provide a medical examination before admitting an individual to a detained asylum fast track procedure, but the failure to provide a medical examination within a prescribed time and to report an allegation of torture rendered continuing detention unlawful.

This case concerned the detention of children. It was held that the policy which permitted the detention of children in a family for a limited time (about 14 days) was lawful, longer detention of children was found to be unreasonable and therefore unlawful. The State also breached Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights of a detained child by not being proactive in assessing and preventing forseeable risk to his health. 

Multiple violations of the Convention by the Belgian Government by detaining an unaccompanied five-year-old child at a transit centre for adult foreigners, removing her and conditions in which she was removed to her home country. Distress and anxiety of the mother as a result of her daughter’s detention and deportation resulted in a number of violations of the Convention. 

Thirteen applicants from Georgia and Russia (of Chechen origin) alleged that their extradition to Russia, where capital punishment was not abolished, exposed them to the risk of death, torture or ill-treatment contrary to Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. The applicants also alleged that they had been subject to violence and ill-treatment by fifteen members of the Georgian Ministry of Justice’s special forces in Tbilisi Prison no.5., on the night of 3 and 4 October 2002. Their legal representatives asserted that Mr Aziev, one of the extradited applicants, had died as a result of ill-treatment inflicted on him. The applicants also complained of violations of Article 2 and 3, Article 5 §§ 1, 2 and 4, Article 13 in conjunction with articles 2 and 3, Article 34, Articles 2, 3 and 6 §§ 1,2 and 3 and Article 38 § 1 of the Convention. 

The European Court of Human Rights found that there had been a violation of Article 5(1) ECHR through the unlawful detention of two Libyan nationals by the Polish authorities after the expiration of an expulsion order due to be executed within 90 days.  

The applicant was the leader of the PKK and the most wanted person in Turkey. He was arrested and sentenced to the death penalty. Breaches of Articles 3, 5 and 6 were found with regard to his detention, the imposition of the death penalty and his rights as the defence to a fair trial.

After the revocation of his residence permit due to his religious activities (alleged links with a fundamentalist organisation), the applicant was detained for a period of 26 days and later deported from Bulgaria. The applicant claims to have been refused access to a lawyer and to have been detained incommunicado. He also claims that his detention and deportation was an interference with his right to family life and right to religious freedom. 

The applicants were unlawfully detained and had no effective remedy to challenge their detention. There was a finding that they had been collectively expelled, given the context of their expulsion along with many others of the same nationality, and as their individual circumstances had not been adequately taken into consideration. 

Application to give suspensive effect to a decision by the Minister for Public Order 

This case concerned deportation of a recognized refugee (Articles 32 and 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees) after a conviction for a criminal offence under common law. 

Immediate deportation would expose the applicant to the risk of suffering irreparable harm in the event that his application for annulment is successful. Because of the severity of that harm, moves to deport him must be given suspensive effect until there has been a final decision on his application for annulment, even though the decision to deport him was motivated by the protection of public order.

The case also considered ending the applicant's detention andreturning the refugee residence permit, which had been withdrawn, to the applicant.