Case summaries

The applicant, an Algerian national convicted in France for terrorism and banned from entering French territory in 2006, was sent back to Algeria in 2014, on the day he was notified of the rejection of his asylum claim and of the issuance of his return order. The Court found that the French authorities violated Article 34 of the Convention by carrying out the applicant’s transfer despite the Court’s interim measure. It also found that France violated Article 3, in the light of the general information regarding the situation of people suspected of international terrorism in Algeria.

In the lack of audiovisual recording of the interview, the Judge must set the appearance hearing, otherwise being the decree issued null and void for the breach of the adversarial principle.

The ECtHR ruled that the detention of a Syrian national was unlawful as his return to Syria was impracticable, which the authorities should have known at that time. It was incumbent on the domestic authorities to consider alternative measures in respect of the applicant. The applicant did not have the benefit of an examination of the lawfulness of his detention to a sufficient degree. Therefore, there was a violation of Articles 5(1) and (4) ECHR.

The ECtHR also ruled that his detention at the Zografou police station led to a violation of his rights under Article 3 ECHR, since it lacked the amenities required for prolonged periods of detention.

The request submitted by the Italian authorities to Norway to take back the applicant would imply his immediate repatriation to his country of origin, Afghanistan, which, in the light of the Court’s reasoning, is not to be considered a safe country.

The Court submitted a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union on the requirement of an automatic suspension of the execution of a negative decision on applications for international protection under EU law.

The fact that a person has been the subject, in the past, of a decision excluding him from refugee status cannot automatically permit the finding that the mere presence of that person in the territory of the host Member State constitutes a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society. A case-by-case assessment is necessary before a measure based on grounds of public policy or public security is adopted. This assessment includes weighing the threat against the protection of the rights of EU citizens and their family members.

Similarly, in order to adopt an expulsion decision with due regard to the principle of proportionality, account must be taken of, inter alia, the nature and gravity of the alleged conduct of the individual concerned, the duration and, when appropriate, the legality of his residence in the host Member State, the period of time that has elapsed since that conduct, the individual’s behaviour during that period, the extent to which he currently poses a danger to society, and the solidity of social, cultural and family links with the host Member State.

The restriction of the right to reside in a country may entail a violation of Article 8 ECHR, when creating disproportionate effects on the individuals’ private life. States should provide effective and accessible means to protect the right to respect for private and family life.  

The fact that a person cannot be repatriated under Article 3 of the ECHR does not imply that that person should be granted a leave to reside in the host country by way of subsidiary protection under Directive 2004/83. The person concerned is eligible for subsidiary protection only if there is a real risk of him being intentionally deprived, in his country of origin, of appropriate health care.

§ 104 para. 13 S. 1 of AufenthG (Residence Law) impedes the claim of a person with subsidiary protection for the assessment of a case of non-refoulment referring to the situation in the state of origin according to § 60 Abs. 5 AufenthG and Art. 3 ECHR in order to enable family reunion due to the lack of a defensible interest. 

The UK Secretary of State for the Home Department’s (SSHD) refusal to accede to a take charge request of a stateless wife and her child in Greece wishing to reunite with their British husband/father in the UK is a breach of Article 7 Charter/8 ECHR (and Article 6(1) of the HRA 1998) on the basis that the SSHD’s decisions were disproportionate and not justified. Notwithstanding that the husband/father is a British citizen, the Dublin Regulation applies, notably Articles 9 and 17(2). In respect of Article 9 Dublin Regulation III, it can be relied upon even where an individual in receipt of international protection subsequently naturalises as a British citizen.