Case summaries

A potential violation of Art. 3 of the Convention can be found when a person risks to be extradited to a country where practice of ill-treatment of detainees are reported by reliable sources, notwithstanding possible assurances by the involved public prosecutors of that country.

Given the irreversible and particular serious nature of the harm which might occur if risks relevant under art. 3 of the Convention materialise, an effective remedy to avoid such a harm within the meaning of art. 13 of the Convention requires both an independent and rigorous scrutiny of a claim, and a remedy with automatic suspensive effect. 

This case concerned fair procedures, namely the right of an applicant to an oral hearing of his asylum appeal. The Court held that a fair appeal does not necessarily impute a right to be heard orally.

Under Article 2 ECHR there can be no extradition of an individual if a serious risk of the death penalty is established. An applicant’s psychological suffering due to the fear of execution by authorities violates Article 3.

It is not open to a Contracting State to enter into an agreement with another State which conflicts with its obligations under the Convention.

No liability in damages in EU Law under Art 16(1)(b) of the Dublin Regulation arose from the failure to promptly examine an application for asylum where the United Kingdom accepted responsibility for the claim. The obligation in Art 13 of the Qualification Directive to grant refugee status to those entitled to it could not be considered a “civil right” protected by Art 6 of the ECHR in the absence of caselaw from the Strasbourg Court expressly recognising this.

This case concerned a decision of the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner (ORAC) to refuse to recommend refugee status on grounds of credibility. The refusal contained a finding which allowed an appeal on the papers only. The applicant sought to have this decision set aside by the High Court on the basis that an appeal without an oral hearing was insufficient as the report depended on a finding of a lack of credibility and thus required oral testimony to rebut this.

For the purposes of access to legal cover for persons applying for international protection, documents issued by the Italian police certifying a person’s identity (residence permit) should be considered as being valid and wholly sufficient to identify the foreigner and, in consequence, to provide legal aid at the State’s expense, regardless of the precise particulars in the country of origin.

A time limit of seven days to submit an appeal against the decision on a manifestly unfounded asylum claim is too short to ensure an effective remedy.

This case related to the conditions of detention at the Thessaloniki Aliens’ Police Directorate in Greece, the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention pending deportation and whether there was had been an effective judicial remedy to challenge his detention.

The Court found that there was a violation of Article 3 as the conditions at the detention centre were inhuman and degrading. The length of his detention violated Article 5(1) as it exceeded the time considered reasonable for the purpose of carrying out his deportation, given the Greek authorities lack of diligence. Domestic law in Greece was incompatible with the safeguards provided for in Article 5(4). 

The applicant complained that the refusal to recommend refugee status at first instance contained errors such that on appeal the “core claim” was effectively being heard for the first time, and further the subsidiary protection assessment was not in compliance with statutory requirements which gave effect to the Qualification Directive; and that he should have had a chance to comment on country of origin information used in the assessment of his application.

The applicants, who had been recognised as refugees by UNHCR, faced risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 upon Turkey’s proposed  deportation of them to either Iran or Iraq. They had no effective opportunity to make an asylum claim or challenge their deportation. Further their detention had no legal justification and they had been unable to challenge its lawfulness. The Court found violations of Article 3, 13, 5(1), 5(2) and 5(4).