Case summaries

Article 8(3)(e) of the recast Reception Conditions Directive fulfils the requirements of proportionality by virtue of the strictly circumscribed framework regulating its use. In light of Article 52(3) of the Charter, Article 8(3)(e) therefore complies with Article 5(1)(f) of the ECHR.

The Court found that there had been a violation of Article 3 in relation to detention conditions at Tychero. There was no violation of Article 5(1) insofar as the detention was not arbitrary and was in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law, but there was a violation of Article 5(4) in relation to the ineffectiveness of the judicial review of detention conditions. Further, there was a violation of Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 3, because the Greek authorities had deported the Applicant to Turkey, without verifying whether his asylum claim was still pending. 

The Court found a violation of Articles 3 and 5(4) ECHR in relation to the Applicant’s detention conditions at Fylakio and Aspropyrgos, and the shortcomings of domestic law in relation to the judicial review of his detention. 

The Upper Tribunal ordered the Secretary of State for the Home Department to immediately admit four vulnerable Syrians from an unofficial migrant camp in France to the United Kingdom in order to be reunited with refugee family members during the examination their asylum applications. Although they had not applied for asylum in France or been subject to Dublin procedures, the particular circumstances meant that failing to do so would lead to a disproportionate interference with their right to respect for family life. 

The detention and proposed expulsion of a Kyrgyzstani national are declared by the European Court of Human rights to constitute a violation of Article 3 and Article 5 of the Convention. The expulsion would be a violation of Article 3 due to the discrimination, persecution and human rights abuses against the ethnic Uzbek group, to which the applicant belongs.

The mistreatment of the applicant during detention and a lack of investigation into the mistreatment constituted a violation of both the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3.

The deprivation of liberty during detention could not be deemed lawful under Article 5 as domestic law was not deemed foreseeable in its application.  

Due to systemic deficiencies in the Maltese asylum system, a responsibility on the part of the German authorities to examine the asylum application exists by virtue of the sovereignty clause in the Dublin III Regulation.

The Court found that Article 4 had been violated because of delay by national authorities in formally recognising that the Applicant was a victim of human trafficking, and because of failings of the police and the courts in prosecuting the individuals suspected of being responsible. Further, Articles 6(1) and 13 had been violated because of delays in the length of criminal proceedings against those individuals, and because the Applicant did not have recourse to an effective remedy to complain about this.

In light of the Court’s previous jurisprudence relating to the conditions at Soufli detention centre, the Greek government has violated Article 3 ECHR on account of overpopulation and poor hygiene conditions, has violated Article 5 § 1 ECHR by not taking steps to carry out the expulsion in the five months of the applicant’s detention and did not provide an effective judicial remedy to challenge his detention pending expulsion, in violation of Article 5 § 4 ECHR.

The Court found a violation of Article 3 in relation to a subsequent application for asylum, which had been rejected on the basis that it contained no new elements indicating that the Applicants ran a real risk of being subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment on deportation to Russia. Because new information had in fact been provided, the national authorities were under an obligation to thoroughly review the information in order to assure themselves that the Applicants’ rights under Article 3 would be safeguarded.

The Court held that there was no violation of Article 3 ECHR in the event of the applicant’s removal to Guinea because the applicant had failed to show a real risk of being re-excised in the event of her return to her country of origin. The Court also found that there had been no violation of Article 13 ECHR.