Case summaries
The European Court of Human Rights found that the authorities in the Netherlands had violated the right to family life of five Ethiopian nationals by not allowing them to be reunited in the Netherlands.
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.
Thirteen applicants from Georgia and Russia (of Chechen origin) alleged that their extradition to Russia, where capital punishment was not abolished, exposed them to the risk of death, torture or ill-treatment contrary to Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. The applicants also alleged that they had been subject to violence and ill-treatment by fifteen members of the Georgian Ministry of Justice’s special forces in Tbilisi Prison no.5., on the night of 3 and 4 October 2002. Their legal representatives asserted that Mr Aziev, one of the extradited applicants, had died as a result of ill-treatment inflicted on him. The applicants also complained of violations of Article 2 and 3, Article 5 §§ 1, 2 and 4, Article 13 in conjunction with articles 2 and 3, Article 34, Articles 2, 3 and 6 §§ 1,2 and 3 and Article 38 § 1 of the Convention.
The European Court of Human Rights found that there had been a violation of Article 5(1) ECHR through the unlawful detention of two Libyan nationals by the Polish authorities after the expiration of an expulsion order due to be executed within 90 days.
The applicant was the leader of the PKK and the most wanted person in Turkey. He was arrested and sentenced to the death penalty. Breaches of Articles 3, 5 and 6 were found with regard to his detention, the imposition of the death penalty and his rights as the defence to a fair trial.
The present case, which ended in a friendly settlement between the parties, concerned the allegations of a Russian national that he would be exposed to ill-treatment if expelled to Russia.
The application of a Bosnian Croat concerning the collective expulsions from Croatia to Bosnia-Hercegovina is found to be manifestly ill-founded and thus the application is inadmissible.