Case summaries

The CJEU clarified that the Schengen Border Code must be interpreted as not allowing Member States to equate an external border with an internal border at which controls have been reintroduced. So, the Return Directive’s exceptions for third-country national who crossed external borders do not apply to someone in the applicant’s position.

A medical examination to assess vulnerability was requested by an applicant in administrative detention. This demand was not examined by the doctor in charge in the detention facility. Therefore, the court of appeal refused an extension of the applicant’s administration detention and ordered their release. 

Delays in the asylum procedure which cannot be imputed to the asylum seeker, and failure to consider less coercive alternatives when detention exceeds reasonable time limits, render detention unlawful.

The Judge of the liberty and detention of the Lyon Court of Appeal released the applicant based on the unavailability of the necessary medical care needed in his country of return.

The continuation of detention beyond the period of 90 days, while the appeal against the decision rejecting the asylum application was still pending, is a disproportionate measure of deprivation of liberty for the applicant. Alternative measures must be considered.

The ECtHR ruled the conditions of the applicant’s detention, prior to her being deported from Cyprus, subjected her to hardship going beyond the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and thus amounted to degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention.

The Belgian authorities carried out a reasonable assessment, balancing the risk to public safety with the applicant’s mental health, in deciding the applicant’s detention. The duration and medical care provided in detention were lawful and justified.

Russia had failed to substantially and effectively examine the repeated claims of the applicants that their extradition would constitute a violation of Article 3 ECHR. Given the current situation in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan and the individual circumstances of the applicants, a number of violations were found.

Withdrawal of detention due to the use of forged travel documents and subsequent obligation to appear before the competent authorities, given to the pending status of the application for asylum.

After being notified of his return decision, set to take place on the same day, the applicant requested an interim measure on Article 3 ECHR grounds in the morning but was nonetheless expelled to Morocco in the afternoon. The Court found no violation of Article 3, regarding the applicant’s expulsion to Morocco, by taking into account subsequent information. It found a violation of Article 34 of the Convention, owing to the fact that the applicant had no sufficient time to file a request to the Court, hence running the risk back then of being potentially subjected to treatment prohibited by the Convention.