Case summaries

The case relates to a Sudanese national of Tunjur origin who claimed a risk of being subjected to ill-treatment if expelled to Sudan on the grounds of his ethnic origin and supposed ties with the JEM, the rebels’ movement against the regime in Sudan. 

The case examines the allegations of a Sudanese national- member of a non-Arab tribe in Sudan- that his deportation to that country would expose him to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention because of his race and supposed links with the rebel movements in the country. 

The case examined the allegations of the applicant that his proposed expulsion to Turkey would place him at risk of inhuman and degrading treatment and would jeopardize his physical and health integrity.

The Court found no violation of the articles 2 and 3 of the Convention and held the claimed violations of articles 6 and 8 to be unfounded.

The French National Asylum Court (the “CNDA”)  must assess whether or not the applicant should be granted refugee status or, failing that, subsidiary protection,taking into account all the factual on the basis of the circumstances which are known to the CNDA when it rules. In order to assess the accuracy of the facts reported by an applicant, the CNDA must take into account all evidence presented by an applicant in support of his application. In particular, when an applicant produces circumstantial evidence relating to the alleged risks that he is likely to face if he returns to his country of origin, the CNDA must – after assessing the credibility of such evidence and analysing it in light of the reported facts – assess the potential risks  which the facts reveal and, as the case may be, indicate the elements that led the CNDA to consider these risks to be not sufficiently serious. 

In case a further extension of the detention order inside an Identification and Expulsion Centre is requested by the Police Commissioner, the procedural right to be heard should be granted to the applicant. If the applicant raises an objection to the violation of his right to be heard, the requested authority shall inform of the grounds for refusing to acceede to the applicant’s argumentation. Otherwise the detention order is to be considered invalid.

This case concerned the risk of violation of Article 3 for the proposed deportation to Iraq of a single female who was a member of the Mandaean religious minority.

 In its previous judgment the Court had found that there would be no violation, provided that the applicant was returned to the Kurdistan Region of Iraq.

The case was struck out unanimously by the Grand Chamber pursuant to Article 37 § 1 ECHR given that the applicant had been granted a permanent residence permit in Sweden. 

The physical border around the enclave of Melilla is conformed by two fences and the intermediate zone created between them. The Spanish military police (Guardia Civil) considers that until a migrant has not overcome the second fence he or she has not entered into Spanish territory and therefore, Spanish law, including the Organic Act 4/2000 on the Rights and Liberties of Foreigners in Spain and their Social Integration (“Aliens Act”), does not apply to a migrant apprehended in the intermediate zone.

The Court ruled that, although this interpretation may violate international law, since there is no clear definition under Spanish law of where the border is located, the direct refusal of migrants who have reached the intermediate zone, does not constitute an administrative prevarication offence. 

The European Court of Human Rights has held that the detention conditions on the island of Chios, the detention centre of Tychero and the north of Greece, where a minor Palestinian was held, were not in breach of article 3 of the Convention.

In addition, the Court did not accept that the applicant’s right to liberty and security (article 5) and right to an effective remedy (article 13) had been violated.

The Act on International Protection (AIP) does not provide for a legal basis to deprive an asylum applicant of their liberty (which is the case when the applicant is placed in a closed centre for irregular migrants, termed the “Centre for Foreigners”), but only for the restriction of movement (which can be the case when the movement is restricted to the area of the reception centre for asylum seekers).

Issuing a negative decision in asylum proceedings by the Polish Refugee Board results in an obligation to leave the territory of Poland. Such an obligation is not formulated directly in the decision itself, but is based on the legal provisions in place. Therefore, the present decision does pose a direct threat of irreparable consequences for the applicant.

Granting temporary protection, by suspending the decision under which the applicant is obliged to leave the territory, allows for the standards of fair trial and the right to court (which covers the right to a fair trial as well as the right to have the case examined, including to be delivered by a ruling), thus going further than just the right to have the case examined.