Case summaries

Ouseley J in the High Court held although the practice and policy of the Secretary of State in operating the Detained Fast Track System (DFT) was not unlawful in its terms, there was room for improvement. The screening process must not only focus on the suitability of a claim for fast-tracking, but it must also consider the impact that a tight timetable and detention may have on the fair presentation of a claim. In addition, lawyers must be allocated to applicants earlier to allow for meaningful instructions to be given and to allow for vulnerable status to be highlighted. Falling short of unlawfulness, the system carried too high a risk that unfair determinations would be made against applicants. 

The ECtHR holds that Russia is in violation of Article 5 ECHR and of Article 4 of Protocol 4 through the implementation of an unlawful administrative practice against a large number of Georgian nationals as a means of identifying them. This led to the arrest, detention and collective expulsion of 4634 Georgians from the Russian Federation and further violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.

The Dublin transfer of the applicant to Hungary will not violate Article 3 of the Convention. 

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that, due to the availability of internal protection, Sweden can deport an asylum seeker back to Iraq provided that he is not returned to parts of Iraq situated outside the Kurdistan Region.

A violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants’ detention conditions in the Thessaloniki department for illegal immigration pending removal. 

ECtHR majority rules that the temporary return of a homosexual man from Sweden to Libya would not violate Article 3 as short term concealment of sexual orientation would be tolerable in order to reduce risk of persecution. 

The case considered an application against the decision of the Secretary of State denying the Claimants a right of in-country appeal against the removal of the Claimants to Italy under the Dublin Regulation. The Claimants argued that their removal to Italy would expose them to a real risk of a breach of their rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The court found that there was no evidence to rebut the presumption that Italy would comply with its obligations under EU laws or of special vulnerability in the personal circumstances of any of the Claimants, to support the assertion that Article 3 of the ECHR would be breached by the Claimants’ removal to Italy. 

The applicant’s transfer from Austria to Greece in April 2009 under the Dublin Regulation did not violate Article 3 of the Convention.

The proceedings before the Slovak Regional Court in respect of judicial review of the applicant’s detention had been incompatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court).

Detention conditions in Greece contrary to Article 3 of the Convention; Lack of effective review of the lawfulness of detention in violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.