Case summaries
When State Parties do not examine an application for international protection in its mertis based on a safe third country clause, Article 3 still requires that they apply a thorough and comprehensive legal procedure to assess the existence of such risk by looking into updated sources regarding the situation in the receiving third country. Hungary violated Article 3 by failing to conduct an efficient and adequate assessment when applying the safe third country clause for Serbia.
Article 5 cannot be considered as ratione materiae applicable to the Röszke transit zone; the applicants' stay there involved a short waiting time in order for Hungary to verify their right to enter, they had entered on their own initiative and they were free to leave the area in the direction of Serbia. The conditions in the transit zone were not found to breach Article 3 because of the restrictive measure's short duration, the possibility for human contact and the applicants' awareness of the procedure.
The principle of effectiveness and the objectives of the Family Reunification Directive preclude domestic legislation that foresees the automatic issue of an entry and residence permit for family reunification on the sole ground that the time limit to decide on the application has expired without having established the substantial requirements for obtaining such a permit, e.g. family links.
An authority examining an application for international protection by an individual already holding protection status in another Member Statemust check whether the protection of fundamental rights is systematically guaranteed by the country already providing international protection. This especially concerns applicants who are entirely dependent on public aid, and, in particular, on the public health system of the country providing them protection.
When a national authority assesses the likely persecution of an applicant for religious purposes in case of return to his/her country of origin, the national authority must evaluate, inter allia, the way the applicant will live his/her faith in his/her country of origin. The Court found that because the applicant is of Hazara ethnic origin and he converted to Christianism in Switzerland, he might face persecution in violation of art. 3 ECHR in case of return to Afghanistan. The TAF did not assess with enough seriousness the consequences of the applicant conversion ex nunc.
Given the condition of Greek health care, a person with a neurological condition, who requires medical follow-up and who has a family, may rightfully invoke Article 3 ECHR to block her, and her family’s, transfer to Greece.
The applicant claims that the original Court neither made a detailed analysis of the applicant's political action – that gave rise to the persecution and, consequently, the asylum application – nor of the subsidiary protection application.
The recursive claim was declared unfounded by the Central Court, which found that there was no evidence of persecution or systematic human rights violations in the country of origin.
The Court ruled that the material conditions of detention exceeded Article 3 ECHR threshold and that the detention of children in such conditions, even for short periods, is also contrary to that Article. It also held that the complaint procedures that were indeed available to the applicants were ineffective, amounting to a violation of Article 13 ECHR.
The applicant’s complaint is based on the allegation that her father had not left Finland voluntarily but had been forced to return to Iraq because of the decisions already taken by the Finnish authorities. Those decisions, therefore, engaged the responsibility of Finland for having exposed the applicant’s father to a real risk of death, which ended up happening. Finland’s actions amounted to a violation of Articles 2 and 3 ECHR.