Case summaries

The detention of three Sri Lankan nationals on grounds of public order before their removal from Cyprus was found to be lawful by the Court. However, the Court found that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their detention, in violation of Article 5(4) ECHR.

The Constitutional Council decides on the constitutionality of the deadline to appeal against a return order, as applicable to a third-country national being detained, under paragraph 4 of Article L. 512-1 of the Code of Entry and Stay of Foreigners and the Right to Asylum (CESEDA). The Council decides hereby that the deadline proves to be too short- consequently unconstitutional- to effectively exercise the right to remedy in the context of detention.

The ECtHR held that the detention for almost six months of a Russian national and her three children in a detention centre in Poland amounted to a violation of Article 8, as even in the light of the risk that the family might abscond, the authorities failed to provide sufficient reasons to justify the detention for such a length of time.

The ECtHR ruled that the detention of an Egyptian national upon arrival in Belgium was lawful as there had been no violation of Article 5(1) of ECHR and the refusal of refugee status was justified.

The Judge of the liberty and detention of the Nîmes Court of Appeal declared irregular the procedure during which the applicant, who couldn’t read, was not properly informed by the police of his rights to apply for asylum and his right to free access to the telephone at the detention centre.

The detention conditions, to which the applicants had been subjected to in police stations, while being under protective custody as unaccompanied minors, violated Article 3 ECHR.  Violation of Article 3 in conjunction with Article 13 on account of the applicants’ inability to bring a complaint against the detention conditions.

Their placement in protective custody was an unlawful detention measure under Article 5, as there were no time limits, no vulnerability assessment and no consideration of this form of custody as one of last resort. The applicants had no possibility to exercise their rights under Article 5 (4), as they could not establish contact with their lawyer and the lack of official detainee status would have raised practical obstacles in any attempt to challenge their detention.

The Court indicated interim measures (under Rule 39) to Russia after the order of removal of a Syrian national who applied for asylum after the expiry of his student visa. Subsequently, the applicant applied to the Court against the Russian Federation claiming that Russia had breached his rights under Articles 2, 3, 5(1)(f) and 5(4) of the Convention.

The ECtHR ruled that there had not been a violation of Article 5(1) ECHR in the applicant’s detention at the VIAL hotspot, a day after the entry into force of the EU-Turkey Statement. It also ruled that the threshold of severity required for their detention conditions to be considered as inhuman or degrading treatment had not been reached.

However, the ECtHR found that Greece violated the applicant’s rights under Article 5(2) by not providing them with detailed, understandable information about the reasons for their detention and the remedies available to them.

The applicants although minors were detained in a detention facility where they were mixed with adults. The detention lasted until the Maltese government determined (in a process that took 8 months) that they were minors.

Moreover, the harsh conditions in the detention facilities amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment.

The ECtHR argues that the expulsion of a Moroccan National from Sweden to Morocco would represent a breach on article 3 ECHR.