Case summaries

Detention of migrants for criminal offences subject to return is lawful even if asylum-seeker status is subsequently acquired. The application of 2008/115/EC is then not mandatory and the detention’s duration is not addressed under Article 5 (1)(f) therefore is to be judged ad hoc.

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.

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 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.  

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.

This case is concerned with whether an appeal against the lawfulness of an asylum applicant’s detention was allowed. Thus the prejudicial question was formulated questioning whether the measure under article 8(3)(a-b) recast Reception Conditions Directive is valid with regards to the provisions in Article 6 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (CFREU) subject to Article 5 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the Court found that the detention conditions of the applicant did not amount to a breach of Article 3 ECHR. However, Malta’s domestic law remained in violation of Article 5 § 4 ECHR as it did not provide an effective remedy to challenge the lawfulness of the detention. The applicant’s detention after being granted subsidiary protection for a further 5 days was a violation of Article 5 § 1 ECHR.

This case is concerned with whether the Secretary of State for Justice has discharged or breached his duty of care with regards to the risk of refoulement in an asylum application.