Case summaries

It is in violation of Art 13 of the ECHR (Right to an Effective Remedy) in conjunction with Art 3 of the ECHR (Prohibition of Torture) that the applicant may not await the court’s decision on his request for a temporary injunction against his expulsion in the Netherlands, even though he has an arguable claim under Art 3 of the ECHR. Further that Art 39 of the Procedures Directive is not correctly implemented in Dutch law.

The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 5 para 1 (f), 4 and 5 with regards to some of the eleven applicants in this case, who were detained as suspected terrorists by UK authorities.

The applicant challenged his transfer to Greece from the UK under the Dublin II Regulation, on the basis that the situation for asylum seekers in Greece would lead to a violation of Article 3 ECHR. The Court declared the application manifestly ill-founded and therefore inadmissible, as it was presumed that Greece would comply with its obligations and would not refoule him to his county of origin Iraq. 

Failure to receive basic services does not represent a reduction within the meaning of Art 16 Reception Conditions Directive. The Reception Conditions Directive does not standardise decision deadlines with regard to applications for the granting of basic services.

The European Court of Human Rights found that the expulsion of a Turkish national from Bulgaria violated his right to respect for private and family life (Article 8) and his right to an effective remedy (Article 13). What is more, it held that the Bulgarian authorities did not abide with the procedural safeguards relating to the expulsion of nationals. 

This was an appeal against the decision to deport an asylum applicant to Italy, when his brother had been admitted to the asylum procedure in France. The Council of State found that, under Art 9(2) Dublin Regulation, Italy was the responsible Member State. Art 8 did not apply as the definition of family members in Art 2(i) does not include siblings. Art 15 was not applicable since the applicant could apply for asylum in Italy. Only after Italy has made a decision the application would it be France's responsibility to decide whether to grant permission to enter and reside in France.  

The case concerns access to a remedy with suspensive effect by an asylum seeker, who claimed asylum at the French border, against a potential removal from France to a country where there is real reason to believe he would face the risk of being subjected to ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR.

Traumatised people and those who have suffered otherwise psychologically and physically from flight behave differently when giving evidence compared with healthy people. This can mean that the full submissions relevant to asylum are not provided at the start of the proceedings or the traumatisation itself is not mentioned. These circumstances are to be taken into account during the ban on new evidence.

This case concerns how internal protection alternatives should be assessed when identifying whether there is a real risk of a violation of Art. 3 ECHR in the country of origin. It also concerns generalized violence and an individual assessment of risk in Somalia. The Court held that the Applicant’s expulsion to Somalia would be in violation of Art. 3 of the Convention and that there was no violation of Art. 13.

The European Court of Human Rights held that the expulsion of an Eritrean deserter to Eritrea would give rise to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.