Case summaries

The Court found a violation of Articles 3 and 5(4) ECHR in relation to the Applicant’s detention conditions at Fylakio and Aspropyrgos, and the shortcomings of domestic law in relation to the judicial review of his detention. 

A court’s decision on a request for suspensive effect of an appeal against a deportation order does not affect the expiration of the 6-month period set out in Art. 29(2) of the Dublin III Regulation. According to German law, a deportation order ceases to be effective upon expiration of this 6-month period.

The detention and proposed expulsion of a Kyrgyzstani national are declared by the European Court of Human rights to constitute a violation of Article 3 and Article 5 of the Convention. The expulsion would be a violation of Article 3 due to the discrimination, persecution and human rights abuses against the ethnic Uzbek group, to which the applicant belongs.

The mistreatment of the applicant during detention and a lack of investigation into the mistreatment constituted a violation of both the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3.

The deprivation of liberty during detention could not be deemed lawful under Article 5 as domestic law was not deemed foreseeable in its application.  

The Court found that Article 4 had been violated because of delay by national authorities in formally recognising that the Applicant was a victim of human trafficking, and because of failings of the police and the courts in prosecuting the individuals suspected of being responsible. Further, Articles 6(1) and 13 had been violated because of delays in the length of criminal proceedings against those individuals, and because the Applicant did not have recourse to an effective remedy to complain about this.

The Court found a violation of Article 3 in relation to a subsequent application for asylum, which had been rejected on the basis that it contained no new elements indicating that the Applicants ran a real risk of being subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment on deportation to Russia. Because new information had in fact been provided, the national authorities were under an obligation to thoroughly review the information in order to assure themselves that the Applicants’ rights under Article 3 would be safeguarded.

The Court held that there was no violation of Article 3 ECHR in the event of the applicant’s removal to Guinea because the applicant had failed to show a real risk of being re-excised in the event of her return to her country of origin. The Court also found that there had been no violation of Article 13 ECHR.

The non-suspensive effect of a decision not to further examine a subsequent application under Article 32 of the 2005 Asylum Procedures Directive is not in violation of Articles 19(2) and 47 of the Charter since the decision’s enforcement will not lead to the applicant being removed and is therefore unlikely to expose the applicant to a risk of inhumane treatment.

In appealing against the Migration Agency’s and the Migration Court’s rejections of the Applicant’s application for leave to remain in Sweden, the Applicant claimed grounds for protection which he/she had not previously raised before the Migration Agency. Claiming grounds for protection meant that special requirements for asylum applications applied and the Applicant was entitled to a personal interview before the Migration Agency. The Migration Court of Appeal referred the Applicant’s case back to the Migration Agency as the Migration Court could not be the body to try the asylum application in the first instance.

The Court found that the applicant would face a real risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR if extradited to Kyrgyzstan, having regard to the various reports from UN bodies and international NGOs assessing the situation in the country.

Taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the Court found that the detention conditions of the applicant did not amount to a breach of Article 3 ECHR. However, Malta’s domestic law remained in violation of Article 5 § 4 ECHR as it did not provide an effective remedy to challenge the lawfulness of the detention. The applicant’s detention after being granted subsidiary protection for a further 5 days was a violation of Article 5 § 1 ECHR.