Case summaries
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.
Complaint under Article 3 ECHR concerning the conditions of detention of a Turkish national in the Czech Bělá-Jezová detention centre declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. Failure to conduct an independent, thorough and victim-accessible investigation into allegations of police ill-treatment at Prague Airport amounts to a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 3 ECHR. Alleged ill-treatment by police officers does not amount to a violation of the substantive aspect of Article 3 ECHR, as the ECtHR cannot establish beyond reasonable doubt that the force used, including pepper spray, was excessive.
To determine whether there is a violation of Articles 2 and 3 ECHR in the context of expulsion, the Court analyses if the Applicant has presented substantial grounds on (i) whether he faces a real risk of ill-treatment or death in the country of destination, and (ii)whether the national authorities carried out an adequate assessment of the evidence. States have an obligation to analyse the risk ex propio motu when they are aware of facts that could expose an individual to the risk of treatment prohibited by Articles 2 and 3 ECHR. If the domestic jurisdictions didn’t carry out a proper assessment, the Court analyses the risk on its own on the basis of the parties submissions, international reports and its own findings.
States have an obligation, under Article 5 § 1 ECHR, to act with due diligence and impose a reasonable period of detention pending expulsion. Article 5 § 4 ECHR is breached if detained individuals can’t obtain a revision of their detention before a domestic court.
The Court decides that the maximum period of detention for the purpose of removal of a person on the grounds of public policy or public security under Belgian law, according to which Union citizens and their family members are treated in the same way as third-country nationals subject to a return procedure, exceeds the principle of proportionality and thus does not comply with EU law.
The situation in which an appeal by a foreigner against a detention decision is declared ‘without object’, solely on the ground that a new detention order has been issued, does not offer the guarantees of effectiveness and promptness required by article 5 §4 of the Convention.
Due to the COVID-19 health crisis, and especially the cancellation of flights to the applicant’s country of origin, the continuation of immigration detention is no longer required because an effective return cannot be considered anymore as a reasonable prospect.
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.
The detention to facilitate the return is used if the return is considered as a reasonable prospect. The period in immigration detention must correspond only to the time which is strictly necessary for the enforcement of the return measure. The lack of a justification for the failure to enforce the return does not prove that the time in immigration detention was used effectively and that an extension could be needed.
A medical examination to assess vulnerability was requested by an applicant in administrative detention. This demand was not examined by the doctor in charge in the detention facility. Therefore, the court of appeal refused an extension of the applicant’s administration detention and ordered their release.
The case concerns three unconnected Iranian nationals who unsuccessfully claimed asylum in the Republic of Cyprus then came to the UK where they made asylum claims. A further right to appeal remained with the Cypriot Supreme Court. The case is a challenge by the applicants to the SSHD’s refusal to decide their asylum claims substantively; certification of their asylum claims on safe third country grounds; and certification of their human rights claims as clearly unfounded.
The Court concluded that there was no real risk that the applicants, if returned to Iran from Cyprus, would be refouled there and the inclusion of Cyprus on the list of safe third countries involves no incompatibility with the ECHR. The Court was wholly unpersuaded that there was any flagrant breach of Article 5 in Cyprus for Dublin returnees who have had a final decision on their claim.