Case summaries

Inadequate care and unlawful detention of an unaccompanied minor seeking asylum: the case concerned the conditions in which a minor from Afghanistan, who had entered Greece illegally, was held in the Pagani adult detention centre on the island of Lesbos.

Legality of detention in the event of imminent deportation to Greece, if the detention was imposed before the judgment by the ECtHR in the case M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece (application no. 30696/09) and there is an enforceable expulsion decision.

This was an appeal against the rejection of an application for asylum before the Appeal Committees formed pursuant to Articles 26 and 32 of Presidential Decree 114/2010; and against the Minister for Citizen Protection's decisions 5401/3-498356 dated 11.2.2011 and 4000/1/67-f dated 18.5.2011. The rejection of the application (and the legal consequences arising from the rejection) was an excusable error, due to the body issuing the decision having adopted misguided practices. The fear of persecution was based on  membership of a particular social group. The domestic violence endured by the Applicant in the form of psychological stress and physical violence at the hands of her husband, in conjunction with the absence of State protection, constitutes a type of gender based persecution because those actions are detrimental to human dignity and physical integrity. Similarly, her non-conformist behaviour meant that she was exposed to the State's strict laws and practices which imposed disproportionately harsh punishment on women accused of having sexual relations outside marriage.

It was held that the implementation of laws (which may be derived from traditional or cultural norms and practices such as Sharia) which conflict with international human rights standards, and also the disproportionately harsh punishment imposed for non-compliance with a policy or for violation of a law (punishment, indeed, which shows gender based discrimination) could constitute persecution.

The imposition of corporal punishment by judicial and administrative authorities is contrary to the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Applicant's disproportionately harsh punishment by whipping or even stoning is considered to be torture and constitutes a serious form of persecution since the right to not be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment is a protected right which is not subject to any exceptions. The prohibition of torture (Article 3 of the ECHR and Article 3 of the Convention against Torture) is absolute, and a grave violation of absolute rights is, undeniably, persecution.

The importance of preserving family unity is emphasised, taking into consideration the Final Act of the Conference which adopted the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the Preamble to Directive 2004/83/EC.

The court found that a prohibition of deportation under Section 60 (2) of the Residence Act (corresponding to Art. 15 (b) of the Qualification Directive) was established due to the existence of a general risk of persecution in case of return to Syria. The Administrative Court, in their assessment of risk, went far beyond the prevailing case law, particularly that of the High Administrative Courts.

A particular mode of persecution cannot be detected in Syria due to the arbitrariness and the juxtaposition of different intelligence services, whose impact cannot be predicted.

A further deterioration of the situation has occurred in light of recent developments and the bloody suppression of the protest movements.

Currently even persons who have not been politically active in exile are, with considerable probability, at risk of being arrested on return, not only for a short period - they are also at risk of torture and other inhuman treatment.

The Constitutional Court did not unreservedly uphold the judgment of the  Supreme Court. The Appellant in the case sought protection of his rights under Article 3 of the ECHR (and fundamental rights under Article 16(2) of the Constitution), which, in comparison with the other human rights and fundamental freedoms defined in the Convention, is characterised by an absolute and collective guarantee. In view of this, the Constitutional Court found that the standards of protection arising from Article 3 of the Convention (and Article 16(2) of the Constitution) should have been applied in the proceedings, even if such an obligation is not explicitly set out in the legislation, because these secure a greater range of constitutional rights and freedoms within the meaning of Article 154c(1) of the Constitution, and therefore take precedence over the law.

The Helsinki Administrative Court held that returning a single mother with her two children to Malta to the conditions described and investigated, among others, in a UN Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Mission to Malta, and on the European Parliament’s LIBE Committee report on Maltese detention centres may cause the family to face inhuman treatment.

An unaccompanied minor from Mongolia was granted a residence permit on the gounds of “particularly distressing circumstances”. The Court held that the applicant would be in a very fragile and vulnerable position if returned as she was a minor without a family or a social network, she suffered from psychological problems and would be forced to live in an orphanage. The Court noted that child labour, child abuse and the sexual exploitation of children are problems in Mongolia and that it is a source and transit country for trafficking.

The applicant based her claim for asylum on the threats and human rights violations arising as a result of her common-law husband’s political activities and the authorities’ suspicion of the applicant’s support of the opposition party. Refugee status was refused. The Administrative Court found that the applicant had failed to establish a risk of persecution based on her imputed political opinion. The Administrative Court held, that to return the applicant to her country of origin where she has experienced serious human rights violations, in the final stages of pregnancy or with a newborn child, without any social networks to fall back on, taken into account together, would form a real threat of serious harm suffering inhuman or degrading treatment as laid out in Art 88 of the Aliens Act.

A young couple (both minors) were eligible for subsidiary protection as they risked being the victims of honour-related violence in their country of origin. The Migration Court of Appeal concluded that in this particular case, it would be unreasonable to ask the applicants to have sought the protection of domestic authorities.

The Court must inquire into the circumstances which establish a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment fulfilling the requirements of subsidiary protection.