Case summaries

The case examined the allegations of an Afghan national that his isolated living condition in the detention centre of Otopeni in Romania constituted inhumane treatment, in violation of article 3 of the Convention. He further alleged a violation of Article 5 para 4 with regards to his right to an effective remedy to challenge the effectiveness of his detention. In addition, he complained of an excessive time period in detention (more than a year). 

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.

An asylum seeker, submitting his claim to a non-competent authority is considered to be staying illegally in the territory of Greece and falls within the scope of the provisions on detention of Directive 2008/115/EC and Law 3907/2011 for returning illegally staying third-country nationals for as long as his identity remains unconfirmed. The deadline for the referral of his application to the competent authorities begins when the applicant provides assistance, as dictated by his duty to cooperate, with regards to the verification of his identity.

Provisional centres are a type of immigration detention centre and European law does not mandate ex novo a specific type of detention.

Directive 2008/115/EC imposes an unconditional right on Member States to provide separate housing to detained persons who are part of a family unit. Conditions on such housing such as “if possible” and “the centre has modules able to guarantee the family’s unity and privacy” are invalid.

Detention centres are free to choose whether the police may act as guards in the centre. If they do so, the police will follow their internal rules regarding the carrying of firearms.

A detained person can only be detained for the second time if such detention is based on new grounds, in which case the detention period can be extended to the maximum legally permitted period of time.

The power to suspend a detained person’s right to communicate when they do not comply with internal regulations can be exerted without a court warrant.

For the search of a detained person to be justified, two requirements must be met: (i) it must be a necessary means to preserve the order and security of the centre and (ii) it must be justified by the previous behaviour of the detainee .

National legislation may impose a list of unauthorised objects on detainees.

The case concerns an expulsion order from Romanian territory issued against a Turkish applicant, and his placement in an administrative detention centre

The Court found that there was no violation of article 5(4) ECHR as the applicant had been given the opportunity to challenge the legality of his detention

However, it found that article 5(1)f) ECHR had been violated as the applicant had been detained for a further three months after the rejection of his asylum claim. 

The CJEU ruling concerned the scope of protection available under EU law to third country nationals suffering from serious illness whose removal would amount to inhuman or degrading treatment. The CJEU surmisedthat the removal of a person suffering a serious illness to a country where appropriate treatment was not available could in exceptional circumstances be contrary to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and in such circumstances their removal had to be suspended pursuant to Directive 2008/115/EC on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals. The Directive 2008/115/EC required the provision of emergency health care and essential treatment of illness to be made available to such persons during the period in which the Member State is required to postpone their removal.

The right to be represented by a lawyer in the context of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 will only apply when an appeal to a return decision has been lodged and free legal assistance will be subject to national domestic legislation. 

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has held that the detention of an unaccompanied minor at Soufli border posts for over 5 months constituted a breach of Article 3 of the ECHR as well as a violation of the right to an effective remedy and the right to liberty and security.

This CJEU ruling concerned the interpretation of Article 6 of Directive 2008/115/EC (‘the Return Directive’) in relation to the right to be heard prior to a return decision being made, to return illegally staying third-country nationals.

It was found that where the national authority had explicitly provided for the obligation to leave national territory in cases of illegal stay in its national legislation and the third-country national had properly been heard in the context of the procedure for examining his/her right to stay; the right to be heard did not require the applicant to be given an additional opportunity to present observations prior to the issue of a return decision. 

The right to court, which includes the principle of contradictoriness and its essential element – the possibility to get acquainted with the information in possession of the authority or the court  – is not a value overriding other values protected by the national legal order.

Such an understanding is reflected in EU law – Article 13 para 1 of the Returns Directive.

In the opinion of the Court it is not inconsistent with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, bearing in mind Article 52 para. 1.

Disclosing concrete information gathered by a specialised agency, responsible for state security, enables identification of the source of information, so it can pose a threat to other persons or even exclude the possibility of obtaining any further relevant information.

In this situation, taking into account the need to protect state security there are limitations which impact upon the procedural rights of a person. However these are justifiable on account of public interest.