Case summaries

The case concerns the potential removal of a Syrian national of Armenian origin and Christian denomination from Greece to Türkiye under the EU-Türkiye Statement of 18 March 2026, following the rejection of his asylum claim on safe third country grounds. The Court struck out the Article 3 complaint concerning the risk of ill-treatment upon removal due to the cessation of risk. It found no violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 having regard to the multi-layered examination of the asylum claim and the reliance on the EU–Türkiye framework, assurances and supporting material, and held that the conditions of the applicant’s detention in a Greek police station amounted to a violation of Article 3 ECHR.

The case concerns seven Venezuelan nationals who arrived in Curaçao in April 2019 and were placed in immigration detention following refusal of entry and removal orders. The Court found a violation of Article 3 ECHR in relation to the use of force during their detention, the absence of an effective and independent investigation and the lack of justification for the use of rubber bullets against applicants in custody. It further found a violation of Article 5 § 4 ECHR, due to the lack of access to a speedy judicial review of the lawfulness of their detention, particularly due to the lack of accessible remedies, language barriers, and absence of effective legal assistance. 

The safe third country ground under Article 33(2)(c) of Directive 2013/32 is optional; an application may be declared inadmissible on that basis even if the applicant qualifies for international protection, but it cannot be rejected as unfounded on that ground.

Article 38 requires national law to define criteria establishing a sufficient connection between the applicant and the third country to make transfer reasonable.

Article 38(2)(b) and (c) of Directive 2013/32 permits reliance on publicly available sources and executive lists of safe third countries, provided that national law sets out a methodology for an individualised assessment of safety and allows the applicant to challenge the existence of the required connection.

Courts hearing appeals must verify the existence of such a connection, even if national law does not expressly grant that power.

Violation of Article 8 regarding the right to respect for family life, arising from a domestic court order for the return of two children from Finland to Russia under the Hague Child Abduction Convention. 

The removal of the author to Greece would amount to a breach of Articles 2 (c)-(f), 3, and 12 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, because the Swiss authorities failed to consider her vulnerable status as a survivor of gender-based violence (GBV) and the real, personal, and foreseeable risk that the author would face as an unaccompanied victim of such violence and suffering from PTSD and depression.

The Committee, invoking the principle of non-refoulement and recognising gender-based violence as discrimination under Article 1 of the Convention, determined that removing the author to Greece would violate Articles 2 (c)-(f), 3, and 12 of the Convention due to the state party's failure to conduct an individualized, gender-sensitive, and trauma-informed assessment of the real and foreseeable risks the author faces as a woman experiencing gender-based violence.

The return of a survivor of trafficking and gender-based violence to the country of original harm under the Dublin III Regulation violates Articles 2(d) and 6 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, unless the state conducts an individualized, trauma-informed, and gender-sensitive assessment of the real risk of retraumatization.

Relying on general assumptions about adequate reception conditions in the receiving state is insufficient where capacity gaps in specialized psychological care exist. The non-refoulement obligation requires assessing real, personal, and foreseeable risks of gender-based violence, including from non-state actors, and prohibits removal where formal legal protections cannot guarantee safety given the individual's extreme vulnerability.

The Committee found that there were serious risks concerning the applicant’s situation that justify a more thorough examination than the simple summary assessment by the Federal Administrative Court. The absence of an effective, independent and impartial review of the decision constitutes a breach of the procedural obligations under Article 3 of the Convention.

The Human Rights Committee ruled that their treatment of asylum seekers detained on Christmas Island and later transferred to Nauru under Australia's offshore processing policy violated the ICCPR, due to arbitrary detention and cruel treatment. Australia was ordered to compensate the victims and reform its migration policies.

The Court ruled that Malta violated Article 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention given the fact that the applicants, who were minors, endured inhumane detention conditions, lacked an effective remedy to challenge their detention, and faced unlawful deprivation of their liberty.