Case summaries

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 conditions of detention amounted to a violation of Article 3, in so far as the applicant remained in isolation, in a container with inadequate natural light and ventilation, for a significant amount of time and without any consideration of alternatives. The applicant’s unnecessary placement in a part of the detention facility that was reserved for Covid-19 quarantine also exposed him to health risk.

The applicant’s detention was not lawful under Article 5 (1) ECHR, as it lasted for fourteen months, the authorities were aware that the deportation was not feasible and failed to pursue the matter with diligence. Article 34 was also violated due to irregularities in the manner that legal aid was provided to the applicant and the lack of confidentiality and support during his communication with the Court while he was in detention.

The governmental authority is requesting an authorization to detain an immigrant after an alleged infraction of article 53 of the Organic Law 4/2000 in order to guarantee the enforcement of a possible return procedure. Following the procedures detailed in article 62 of said law, the Court assessed the particular circumstances of the case, including the risk of nonappearance and the possible existence of previous administrative sanctions of the subject, concluding that the lack of roots in the Spanish territory and the fact that he already filled in an asylum application show that the detention is not necessary in this case.

The Return Directive does not preclude Member States from introducing legislation that imposes a custodial sentence on individuals for whom the return procedure has been exahusted but still remain in the territory, where the criminal act consists in an unlawful stay with notice of an entry ban, issued in particular on account of that third-country national’s criminal record or the threat he represents to public policy or national security.

However, such a provision in national legislation is permitted if the criminal act is not defined as a breach of such an entry ban and the legislation itself is sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable in its application in order to avoid all risk of arbitrariness.

The Court decided that the applicants’ arrest and detention were unlawful under Article 5 of the Convention. The eighth applicant’s complaint under Article 3 that she, a minor at the time, was not provided with adequate care in detention in connection with her pregnancy and the miscarriage she suffered was not accepted by the Court.

Slovakian authorities provided information and interpretation and there are no indications that these were inadequate to the extent of impairing the individual’s access to asylum. The applicant’s return to Ukraine was conducted in the context of a readmission framework and there was no reason for Slovakian authorities to be particularly alert regarding potential human rights violations in Ukraine.

However, there has been a procedural violation of Article 3 of the Convention by Ukraine on account of the Ukrainian authorities’ failure to examine the applicant’s claims of fear of persecution in Afghanistan properly before returning him there. Moreover, there has been a violation of Article 5 §§ 2 and 4 of the Convention by Ukraine.

The detention of children is, in principle, permitted under Article 5 ECHR for the shortest amount of time, in appropriate conditions and facilities, and only after the Government has correctly concluded that less coercive measures are unavailable.

The complaint of the applicants under Article 3 are manifestly unfounded.

Confinement of asylum applicants in an airport transit zone is contrary to Art. 5 § 1 (f) in the absence of any domestic legal basis for the applicants’ deprivation of liberty.

Confinement of asylum seekers left to their own devices in airport transit zones under the control of border authorities, without unimpeded access to shower or cooking facilities, outdoor exercise and medical or social assistance amount to degrading and inhuman conditions under Art. 3 ECHR if protracted for a long time. 

When State Parties do not examine an application for international protection in its mertis based on a safe third country clause, Article 3 still requires that they apply a thorough and comprehensive legal procedure to assess the existence of such risk by looking into updated sources regarding the situation in the receiving third country. Hungary violated Article 3 by failing to conduct an efficient and adequate assessment when applying the safe third country clause for Serbia.

Article 5 cannot be considered as ratione materiae applicable to the Röszke transit zone; the applicants' stay there involved a short waiting time in order for Hungary to verify their right to enter, they had entered on their own initiative and they were free to leave the area in the direction of Serbia. The conditions in the transit zone were not found to breach Article 3 because of the restrictive measure's short duration, the possibility for human contact and the applicants' awareness of the procedure.

The Court ruled that the material conditions of detention exceeded Article 3 ECHR threshold and that the detention of children in such conditions, even for short periods, is also contrary to that Article. It also held that the complaint procedures that were indeed available to the applicants were ineffective, amounting to a violation of Article 13 ECHR.