Case summaries

The rules on safe third countries, according to which applications for international protection in the event of a threatened violation of Art 8 ECHR must not be refused on the basis of formal safety in another country, is to be applied similarly to the Dublin II Regulation. If the Applicant already has subsidiary protection in one Member State, in accordance with the Dublin II Regulation his application in a different State in which his son, who is a minor and entitled to asylum, is living, (in addition to the Applicant’s pregnant wife) must not be refused.  On the contrary, this State must make use of the right to assume responsibility for the examination.

Application from the Turkish Authorities to have the Greek Judicial Authorities issue an extradition notice against A.F., a Turkish citizen seeking asylum in Greece.

The Court ruled against the Turkish Authorities' extradition request, deciding that if the person in question were extradited to Turkey there would be a risk that her situation would be made worse because of her political beliefs and because of her pending application to have her refugee status recognised by the Greek state.

The case concerns discrimination against a refugee and his post-flight wife in the enjoyment of their right to family life because she was not allowed to join him in the UK. This was owed to more restrictive rules for the reunification of the spouses of refugees in comparison to workers or students, or to refugees married at the time of the flight.

The case examined the allegations of five Afghan nationals that their detention conditions in Pagani detention centre were in violation of Article 3 of the Convention, that they did not have access to an effective remedy (Article 13) and that they were deprived of their liberty and security as well as of their right to have the lawfulness of their detention decided speedily by a Court (Article 5 para 4). 

The Applicant was a homosexual male from Iran who had renounced Islam and was studying the catechism of the Roman Catholic doctrine. It was held that the Applicant had no well-founded (objective) fear of persecution on the grounds of changing his religious beliefs.

Regarding the risks associated with his sexual orientation, the fear that the Applicant expressed was deemed to be well-founded, and it was held that not externalising his sexual orientation to avoid danger would, in and of itself, constitute serious harm to his right to respect for his private life and his right to not be discriminated against. Therefore, his refugee status was recognised and he was granted the international protection in the form of refugee status.

Refusal to grant social security to political refugees was in breach of the Convention.

Expulsion by France of two nationals of Belarus whose asylum claims had been rejected would amount to a violation of Article 3. 

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 was expelled from Russia on the basis of his religious activities and separated from his infant son as a result. While Russia attempted to justify this on the ground of national security, the Court held that sufficient evidence was not provided and that Articles 5, 8, 9 and 38 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 had been violated.

The 1951 Refugee Convention does not provide protection in respect of claims of conscientious objectors who feared imprisonment for their refusal to undertake military service where there is no alternative service offered in national law. This was the position even if that objection is to all forms of military service and is absolute. The right to conscientious objection was not yet protected in international human rights law and was yet to emerge as a principle of customary international law. A claim may succeed if the applicant would be required, in the course of military service, to conduct military action that breached the basic rules of human conduct or if the punishment they would receive for refusal to serve was discriminatory or disproportionate. Secondly, when assessing whether persecution was “for” a Convention reason the decision-maker should ask the question of “what was the real reason for the persecution?”. The decision-maker should not limit the enquiry to the persecutor’s motivation but should look for the effective reason or reasons.