Case summaries

The case follows on from litigation presented in M.A. v Cyprus and focuses in on the legal grounds for detention in Cyprus for an applicant who is subject to removal as well as an individual’s right to speedy judicial review of the lawfulness of detention. 

A lack of attention paid to the vulnerability of the applicants as asylum seekers and children and their subsequent exposure to conditions of extreme poverty outside the State reception system has led to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

The procedure of requesting the suspensive effect of a decision rejecting an asylum application and ordering the transfer of an applicant to another Member State does not amount to an effective remedy under the Convention. 

A span of more than three-years between the filing of the appeal against the expulsion order and the original scheduling of the initial oral hearing of such appeal violated a plaintiff’s right to a trial without undue delays, in accordance with the criteria identified by the Spanish Constitutional Court in its settled case-law for determining whether a procedural delay is undue. These criteria consider, among others, the complexity of the case, the average duration of similar proceedings and the nature of the plaintiff’s interest at stake. 

The case examined the allegations of an Afghan national that his isolated living condition in the detention centre of Otopeni in Romania constituted inhumane treatment, in violation of article 3 of the Convention. He further alleged a violation of Article 5 para 4 with regards to his right to an effective remedy to challenge the effectiveness of his detention. In addition, he complained of an excessive time period in detention (more than a year). 

Upon preliminary examination, it cannot be excluded that a decision of an administrative court, limited to making a Dublin transfer conditional upon the assurance of the competent authorities in the country of destination that accommodation will be provided for the family in question, violates the right to an effective remedy under Art. 19(4)(1) of the Basic Law.

Since the removal might lead to severe disadvantages for the applicants which cannot easily be compensated for and which outweigh the consequences of a preliminarily prolonged presence of the persons concerned, the removal has to be suspended until the Federal Constitutional Court has reached its final decision. 

The case examined the allegations of the applicants that their detention conditions in Greek detention centres were contrary to Article 3 due to overpopulation and poor hygiene conditions. It further examined their complaint under Article 5 para 4 that the administrative tribunal in Greece, which should have examined the legality of their detention did not, in fact, adequately do so. 

The case examines the allegations of a Sudanese national- member of a non-Arab tribe in Sudan- that his deportation to that country would expose him to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention because of his race and supposed links with the rebel movements in the country. 

The European Court of Human Rights has held that the detention conditions on the island of Chios, the detention centre of Tychero and the north of Greece, where a minor Palestinian was held, were not in breach of article 3 of the Convention.

In addition, the Court did not accept that the applicant’s right to liberty and security (article 5) and right to an effective remedy (article 13) had been violated.

Issuing a negative decision in asylum proceedings by the Polish Refugee Board results in an obligation to leave the territory of Poland. Such an obligation is not formulated directly in the decision itself, but is based on the legal provisions in place. Therefore, the present decision does pose a direct threat of irreparable consequences for the applicant.

Granting temporary protection, by suspending the decision under which the applicant is obliged to leave the territory, allows for the standards of fair trial and the right to court (which covers the right to a fair trial as well as the right to have the case examined, including to be delivered by a ruling), thus going further than just the right to have the case examined.

The administrative authorities ensured an adequate standard of proceedings and had correctly established the facts in a case of an applicant who had only brought up the argument that she was a victim of domestic violence at the court stage.

The Court does not accept the allegations that the applicant was deprived of her right to court because she and her children were deported before the deadline for the complaint to the court. The complaint was eventually lodged within the deadline which means she could benefit from the real possibility of applying this measure so her right to court was not infringed. Therefore the Court sees no need to request the Constitutional Tribunal to take a stand on this issue.