Case summaries

This case examined the compatibility of the Dublin II Regulation with the European Convention on Human Rights regarding transfers to Greece under the Dublin II Regulation. The Court found that there was a violation of Article 3 ECHR by the Greece Government because of the applicant’s conditions of detention, violation of Article 3 ECHR by Greece concerning the applicant’s living conditions in Greece, violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3 ECHR against Greece because of the deficiencies in the asylum procedure followed in the applicant’s case and the risk of his expulsion to Afghanistan without any serious examination of the merits of his asylum application and without any access to an effective remedy. The Court also found in relation to Belgium that there was a violation of Article 3 by sending the applicant back to Greece and exposing him to risks linked to the deficiencies in the asylum procedure in that State, also held against Belgium a violation of Article 3 for sending him to Greece and exposing him to detention and living conditions there that were in breach of that ECHR article. The Court also found a violation of Article 13 ECHR taking in conjunction with Article 3 ECHR against Belgium.

A group shall be considered as a particular social group where, in particular, members of that group share an innate characteristic, or a common background that cannot be changed, or share a characteristic or belief that is so fundamental to identity or conscience that a person should not be forced to renounce it, and that group has a distinct identity in the relevant country, because it is perceived as being different by the surrounding society, and membership of that group is established where the attitude of an applicant is considered by the whole or a part of the society of his/her country of origin as an infringement of the customs and laws in force, and for this reason he/she is likely to face persecution against which the authorities refuse or are unable to protect him/her.

The applicant’s claim for refugee status was rejected as Convention grounds were not established, however, subsidiary protection was granted in the alternative by the court on the basis of grave human rights violations and the prohibition of torture (Art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)).

The court accepted the argument that by granting a lower protection status (tolerated status), even if the applicant qualifies for subsidiary protection, the asylum authority violates Art 15 (b) and (c) of the Qualification Directive (Art 61 (b) and (c) of the Asylum Act)

The applicant sought asylum in Spain claiming to have suffered persecution in Bangladesh on the grounds of membership of a group (the Beharies) determined by its ethnic identity. This persecution intensified when the war with Pakistan broke out. The Ministry of Interior refused the application which was appealed by the applicant to the High National Court. This court examined if persecution under the 1951 Refugee Convention could be established, beyond a case of discrimination.

The situation of generalised violence resulting from a situation of internal armed conflict ended after the victory of the Sri Lankan army over the LTTE in May 2009. Furthermore, the fact that the applicant belonged to the Tamil community was not sufficient to justify his fears of persecution considering the situation which prevails in Sri Lanka, which cannot be seen as characterising a situation in which the destruction of a specific ethnic group is pursued, since the civilians of Tamil origin are not targeted for persecution by the governmental authorities solely for reason of their ethnic origin.

Subsidiary protection was granted on grounds that the applicant, from Iran, could be at risk inhuman or degrading treatment. The applicant based his asylum claim on the political activities of his brother in his country of asylum, as well as his own participation in protests in Iran. The Court found that after having spent two years in Finland as an asylum seeker it was likely that the applicant would be of special interest to the Iranian authorities.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled that Turkey had violated Article 5 para 1 and 4 of the Convention with regards to the applicant’s unlawful detention and lack of remedy to challenge the lawfulness of his deprivation of liberty. Further, it found a violation of Article 34.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled that Turkey had violated Article 5 para 1 and 4 of the Convention with regards to the applicant’s unlawful detention and lack of remedy to challenge the lawfulness of his deprivation of liberty. Further, it found a violation of Article 34.

The Constitutional Court allowed an appeal against a decision to expel a single mother and her three minor children to Greece. It is necessary that Greece ensure appropriate accommodation will be provided for vulnerable persons in each case. The applicants are vulnerable persons and the lack of assurance from Greece, therefore, gave rise to a real risk of a violation of Art 3 ECHR.

The applicants, a family of four from Iran, were deported back to Iran from Turkey after having been granted refugee status by the UNHCR. The applicants challenged the lawfulness of their detention, claimed that they were not offered an effective remedy prior to their deportation and that they were at risk of persecution upon their return to Iran.