Case summaries

The Austrian authorities must, in each case, examine whether there exists a real risk of a violation of Art 3 ECHR through indirect refoulement when expelling an asylum applicant and, if such a risk exists, the authorities should exercise the sovereignty clause in the Dublin Regulation. This applies even where a request to take back is made to another Member State of the Dublin Regulation. Although the Asylum Board's reasoning for refusing the applicant's appeal against a transfer to Slovakia was not very detailed, it was not arbitrary and therefore there was no violation of the applicant's Constitutional rights.

The court gave guidance for assessing whether the risk of suicide on removal would engage Art 3 of the European Convention on Human rights.

Thirteen applicants from Georgia and Russia (of Chechen origin) alleged that their extradition to Russia, where capital punishment was not abolished, exposed them to the risk of death, torture or ill-treatment contrary to Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. The applicants also alleged that they had been subject to violence and ill-treatment by fifteen members of the Georgian Ministry of Justice’s special forces in Tbilisi Prison no.5., on the night of 3 and 4 October 2002. Their legal representatives asserted that Mr Aziev, one of the extradited applicants, had died as a result of ill-treatment inflicted on him. The applicants also complained of violations of Article 2 and 3, Article 5 §§ 1, 2 and 4, Article 13 in conjunction with articles 2 and 3, Article 34, Articles 2, 3 and 6 §§ 1,2 and 3 and Article 38 § 1 of the Convention. 

The case involved two Uzbek nationals who were extradited to Uzbekistan by Turkey after Uzbekistan claimed they had committed terror-related crimes, while the applicants countered that they were political dissidents and would face ill-treatment and torture if returned. Despite the Court ordering interim measures to defer, Turkey extradited both and they were sentenced to terms of imprisonment. The Court found no violations of Art. 2, 3, or 6, but did find a violation of Art. 34 for Turkey’s non-compliance with the interim measures. 

When a transfer under the Dublin Regulation would result in a violation of fundamental rights, the Member State in which the applicant is present can examine the asylum application even though another State should have been responsible under the Dublin Regulation. In this case, the applicant’s wife was allowed to remain in France as she was in the advanced stage of pregnancy and, therefore, transferring the applicant would violate Art 8 ECHR.

This case considered of the support available for asylum seekers. It was held that the system in place was not procedurally fair and that Art 3 of European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was engaged. Judicial review of the refusal was not an adequate remedy for refusal of support where the administrative procedure was unfair and inadequate.

The present case, which ended in a friendly settlement between the parties, concerned the allegations of a Russian national that he would be exposed to ill-treatment if expelled to Russia.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the proposed expulsion of a Tanzanian national from the United Kingdom to Tanzania will expose him to inhuman and degrading treatment, in violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

Turkey’s continual and severe failure to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of disappearance of Greek-Cypriots, who were at the time under the control of its agents, constituted a violation of Articles 2,3 and 5 of the ECHR. The circumscription of freedom of movement, religion and association of Greek-Cypriots in Northern Greece constituted violations of Articles 9 and 10 and the continual violation of Article 1 Protocol 1 by virtue of preventing Greek Cypriot owners from having access to, control and use of their property was also found by the Court.

The proposed deportation of the applicant to Iran would violate Article 3 ECHR, and as she was prevented from having the merits of her claim examined due to non-compliance with procedural time limits, there was a breach of Article 13 ECHR.  This was because she had no chance to challenge the decision on appeal, or access to a remedy with suspensive effect.