Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Reset
J.B. v. Greece, Application no. 54796/16, 26 May 2026
Country of applicant: Syria

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.

Date of decision: 26-04-2026
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 33.1,Article 47,Article 6,Article 8,Article 12,Article 13,Article 14,Article 15,Article 16,Article 31,Article 32,Article 33,Article 38,Article 46,Article 5,Article 13,Art 33.2,Article 3,Article 13,Article 41,Article 4,Article 9,Article 10,Article 13,Article 14,Article 21
Y.F.C. and Others v. The Netherlands, Application no. (Application no. 21325/19), 21 April 2026
Country of applicant: Venezuela

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. 

Date of decision: 21-04-2026
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 32,Art 33.1,Article 6,Article 8,Article 9,Article 12,Article 26,Article 31,Article 12,Article 13,1.,1. (a),1. (b),2.,2. (a),2. (b),3.,4.,5.,6.,6. (a),6. (b),Art 33.2,Article 3,Art 5.1 (a),Art 5.1 (b),Art 5.1 (c),Art 5.1 (d),Art 5.1 (e),Art 5.1 (f),Art 5.2,Art 5.4,Article 8,Article 9,Article 10,Article 21,Art 4
ECtHR - N.D. and N.T. v. Spain [GC], nos. 8675/15 and 8697/15, 13 February 2020
Country of applicant: Ivory Coast, Mali

The Court found no violation of the Convention given that the applicants would have had access to a genuine and effective possibility of submitting arguments against their expulsion had  they entered lawfully into Spain – they did not have any “cogent reasons” for not using the border procedures available at designated entry points. As such, the lack of an individualised procedure for their removal was the consequence of their own conduct.

Date of decision: 13-02-2020
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 1,Art 3,Art 32,Art 33,Art 31,Art 4,Art 16,Art 22,Article 4,Article 18,Article 19,Art 19.1,Art 19.2,Article 47,Article 6,Article 7,Article 8,Article 9,Article 10,Article 1,Article 2,Article 4,Article 5,Article 8,Article 12,Article 13,Art 33.2,Article 1,Article 3,Article 13,Article 13,Article 2,Article 4,Article 14,Article 21,Art 4,Art. 3,Article 67,Article 78
Hungary - Metropolitan Court of Budapest, ÖH v BevándorlásiésÁllampolgárságiHivatal (Office of Immigration and Nationality, OIN) 20.K.31.162/2012/10
Country of applicant: Turkey

The court ordered the Office of Immigration and Nationality to conduct new proceedings. The mere fact that national security risk factors arise vis-à-vis a person is not sufficient reason to exclude them from refugee or subsidiary protection status.

Date of decision: 25-09-2012
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 12,Art 10,Art 4,Art 1F,Art 33.2