Case summaries

The applicants, a stateless Palestinian from Syria and two Syrian nationals, had been ordered to be expelled to Syria by the Russian authorities, and were detained in a detention centre in Russia pending this. The Court found that their expulsion to Syria would breach Articles 2 and 3, that Articles 5(4) and 5(1)(f) had been violated with regards to their detention, and that the restrictions on their contact with their representatives had breached Article 34.

Termination of an applicant’s international protection status (ie where there is a change or termination of protection grounds) must be examined against the principle of non-refoulement, which ensures the right to a fair and efficient procedure in which the Asylum authority assesses if non-refoulement would be violated where protection ceases.

It results from the principle of non-refoulement that the applicant in proceedings on termination of subsidiary protection must have the possibility to state all the reasons for which subsidiary protection should not cease.

In the process of renewal of subsidiary protection all the guarantees provided by Article 18 of the Constitution (Prohibition of Torture) should be respected.

Legislation which limited the assessment of the competent authority in the subsidiary protection renewal procedure only to the grounds based on which an individual has been granted subsidiary protection, is inconsistent with the right set out in Article 18 of the Constitution.

The applicant, an Iranian national, had fled Iran in light of the risks he faced there as a political dissident, and had been detained in Greece with a view to being expelled to Iran. The Court held that the Greek authorities had violated Articles 3 concerning his conditions of detention, 3 and 13 combined because of the lack of an effective remedy to complain about these conditions, the failings of the asylum procedure and the risk of being sent back to Iran, and 5(4) with respect to the inefficient judicial review of the detention.

The case follows on from litigation presented in M.A. v Cyprus and focuses in on the legal grounds for detention in Cyprus for an applicant who is subject to removal as well as an individual’s right to speedy judicial review of the lawfulness of detention. 

A lack of attention paid to the vulnerability of the applicants as asylum seekers and children and their subsequent exposure to conditions of extreme poverty outside the State reception system has led to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

The procedure of requesting the suspensive effect of a decision rejecting an asylum application and ordering the transfer of an applicant to another Member State does not amount to an effective remedy under the Convention. 

The European Court of Human Rights held that the removal of a Syrian national of Kurdish origin to Italy would not give rise to a violation of Article 3 and 8 of the Convention.

When due to security reasons an individual cannot be allowed to return to his home where he has lived most of his life, the State has to adopt any other available positive measure to restore his property rights or to provide him with compensation in an appropriate time. Otherwise a violation of both Art. 8 of the Convention and Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 may occur. 

When enforcing the Dublin III Regulation, the deporting country must verify whether the asylum procedure in the intermediary country sufficiently guarantees that the applicant will not be subject to a treatment which violates Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The deportation order was illegitimate due to inadequate conditions for the reception of asylum seekers and recognised refugees in Greece and the serious risk of inhuman or degrading treatment for asylum seekers and recognised refugees in Greece.

The case examined the allegations of an Afghan national that his isolated living condition in the detention centre of Otopeni in Romania constituted inhumane treatment, in violation of article 3 of the Convention. He further alleged a violation of Article 5 para 4 with regards to his right to an effective remedy to challenge the effectiveness of his detention. In addition, he complained of an excessive time period in detention (more than a year). 

The case examines the allegations of a Sudanese national- member of a non-Arab tribe in Sudan- that his deportation to that country would expose him to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention because of his race and supposed links with the rebel movements in the country.