Case summaries

The detention conditions experienced by two Syrians in the Krasnoye Selo facility amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 ECHR. Moreover, the length of detention in most of the applicants’ cases was between eleven and fifteen months, which exceeded what was reasonably required for the purpose of administrative expulsion.  Furthermore, they had no access to judicial and periodic review of their continued detention. A violation of Articles 5(1)(f) and 5(4) were found.

The ECtHR reviewed if the detention of a family with three children in a border police’s detention facility would be considered as a breach of Article 3 ECHR.

The Court found that the conditions under which the applicant was detained between 3 November 2013 and 7 January 2014 at the Yalova police headquarters, exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and attained the threshold of degrading treatment proscribed by Article 3. 

Prospective extradition of Applicants, members of an established vulnerable group under ECtHR, to a country where the risk of ill-treatment is real shall trigger a violation of Article 3 ECHR. Detention orders not meeting Article 5§1(f) ECHR objective threshold are and should be deemed as unlawful. The plurality of domestic remedies with the same objective does not prescribe their use by the Applicant for the purposes of Article 35§1 ECHR.

The Court ruled that there would be a breach of Article 3 if the applicant were expelled to Tajikistan, that there was a violation of Article 5(4) based on the thirty-five and the seventy days delay of the competent agency processing the translation of the relevant material for the applicant. Finally, the Court found that the detention was lawful and there was no violation of Article 5(1).

Detention of asylum seekers should only be permitted under the conditions prescribed by the law. The detention and deportation orders should always provide sufficient legal justification including the objective facts leading to the administrative authorities’ decision.

The competent authority has to respect as legally binding a court order that determines a certain date of birth and thereby the minority of an applicant. This is also the case if the applicant himself indicates another (earlier) date of birth.

The personal interview of a minor without his legal representative constitutes a significant procedural violation. The facts are presumed to not be ascertained. The competent authority has to ascertain the facts and circumstances once again. 

An applicant may not be detained with a view to carrying out a transfer under the Dublin Regulation, in the absence of objective criteria for assessing the existence of a significant risk of absconding, defined in a binding legal provision of general application.

The case concerns the validity of the first subparagraph of Article 8(3)(a) and (b) of the Receptions Conditions Directive in the light of Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. 

The case concerns the calculation of time limits for detention for the purpose of a Dublin transfer under Article 28 of the Dublin III Regulation (DRIII).