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. 

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 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. 

The Court found that the Swiss legislation sets stringent socio-economic requirements which in practice may render the right to family reunification impossible to exercise, in view of the personal situation of the sponsors residing in Switzerland and who cannot be expected to do the impossible to meet the conditions imposed on them.

The Court found Hungary in violation of procedural aspects of Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR, as well as a substantive violation of Article 2 in relation to the death of the applicant’s brother during a border control operation. The Court rejected the substantive violation of Article 3 due to a lack of conclusive evidence from an effective investigation.

The Court of Justice held that defending personal interests against illegally acting non-state actors due to state corruption can be regarded as ‘political opinion’ under Directive 2011/95 if perceived as opposition by the persecuting actors.

The Return Directive precludes the adoption of a return decision when the person concerned is suffering from a serious illness and there are substantial grounds to believe that their pain would significantly increase if returned, because effective treatment is not available there. Although the Directive does not require Member States to grant a right to residence to such third-country nationals, when implementing the Directive, the right to private and family life must be respected, which includes, among other elements, access to healthcare and medical treatment.

Detention beyond the period for which an individual would otherwise need to be detained pursuant to Schedule 2 § 16(1) for the purpose of an age assessment that will or doesn’t comply with applicable legal standards would be unlawful. Also, both common law and section 55 of the BCIA 2009 require a fair and careful process involving appropriate safeguards, which the Guidance doesn’t provide and is also inconsistent with the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) pre-existing polices.

In a case concerning a foreign national who had a valid refugee status in Germany, the Dutch Secretary of State ordered them to leave the country and placed her in detention in view of returning her to Germany. The Council of State found that the first instance Court wrongfully declared that Article 59(2) of the Aliens Act of 2000 provided no basis for detaining the foreign national.