Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Reset
ECtHR - R.U. v. Greece, Application No. 2237/08
Country of applicant: Turkey

The case concerned detention and detention conditions in Greece for a Turkish asylum seeker of Kurdish origin, who had been tortured in Turkey, and the conduct of the asylum procedure.

Date of decision: 07-09-2011
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 32,Art 33,Art 31,Article 3,Article 5,Article 13,Article 41
ECtHR - Bardi v Spain, Application No. 66167/09

The case concerns judicial proceedings that ended with the granting of guardianship of a child from the Sahrawi refugee camps in Tindouf to a Spanish host family, after a long period of uncertainty and despite her biological mother’s request for her return. The Court found violation of Article 8 in this regard.

Date of decision: 24-08-2011
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 8,Article 41
ECtHR - Rahimi v. Greece, Application No. 8687/08
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

Inadequate care and unlawful detention of an unaccompanied minor seeking asylum: the case concerned the conditions in which a minor from Afghanistan, who had entered Greece illegally, was held in the Pagani adult detention centre on the island of Lesbos.

Date of decision: 05-07-2011
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003,1.,EN - Dublin II Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003,Article 3,Article 5,Article 13,Article 41
ECtHR - Saidoun and Fawsie v. Greece, Application Nos. 40083/07 and 40080/07
Country of applicant: Lebanon, Syria
Keywords: Refugee Status

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

Date of decision: 28-01-2011
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 23,Article 8,Article 14,Article 41
ECtHR – Dbouba v. Turkey, Application No. 15916/09, 13 October 2010
Country of applicant: Tunisia
The applicant, a Tunisian national who has been recognised as a refugee by the UNHCR, faced deportation by Turkey to Tunisia, where he risks ill-treatment and the death penalty. He has not had access to an effective remedy with regards to this, nor has he been allowed to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. By virtue of the applicant’s proposed return to Tunisia the Court found a violation of Article 3 ECHR in conjunction with Article 13. The Court also found a violation of articles 5(1), 5(2), 5(4) and 5(5) ECHR.
 
Date of decision: 13-10-2010
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 3,Article 5,Article 13,Article 35,Article 41,Article 44,Art 5.1,Art 5.2,Art 5.4,Art 5.5
ECtHR- D.B. v. Turkey, Application no. 33526/08, 13 October 2010
Country of applicant: Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled that Turkey had violated Article 5 para 1 and 4 of the Convention with regards to the applicant’s unlawful detention and lack of remedy to challenge the lawfulness of his deprivation of liberty. Further, it found a violation of Article 34.

Date of decision: 13-10-2010
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 2,Article 3,Article 13,Article 34,Article 41
ECtHR- D.B. v. Turkey, Application no. 33526/08, 13 October 2010
Country of applicant: Iran

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled that Turkey had violated Article 5 para 1 and 4 of the Convention with regards to the applicant’s unlawful detention and lack of remedy to challenge the lawfulness of his deprivation of liberty. Further, it found a violation of Article 34.

Date of decision: 13-10-2010
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 2,Article 3,Article 13,Article 34,Article 41
ECtHR - S.H. v. United Kingdom, Application No. 19956/06
Country of applicant: Bhutan

The Applicant, S.H., is a Bhutanese national of ethnic Nepalese origin who currently lives in Huddersfield. He claimed asylum in the UK, but the application was refused and he was served with removal directions. Prior to his removal, the Court indicated to the United Kingdom Government that he should not be expelled. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the Applicant complained that his removal to Bhutan would expose him to a risk of ill-treatment on account of his ethnicity, his status as a failed asylum seeker, and as the close relative of a human rights activist who has been granted asylum in the United Kingdom.

Date of decision: 15-09-2010
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 2,Art 15,Article 3,Article 41
ECtHR- R.C. v. Sweden, Application no. 41827/07, 9 June 2010
Country of applicant: Iran

The European Court of Human Rights held that the deportation of an Iranian national to Iran would give rise to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

Date of decision: 09-06-2010
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 3,Article 34,Article 41,Article 44,Article 45
ECtHR - Baysakov and others v. Ukraine, Application no. 54131/08, 18 may 2010
Country of applicant: Kazakhstan

A potential violation of Art. 3 of the Convention can be found when a person risks to be extradited to a country where practice of ill-treatment of detainees are reported by reliable sources, notwithstanding possible assurances by the involved public prosecutors of that country.

Given the irreversible and particular serious nature of the harm which might occur if risks relevant under art. 3 of the Convention materialise, an effective remedy to avoid such a harm within the meaning of art. 13 of the Convention requires both an independent and rigorous scrutiny of a claim, and a remedy with automatic suspensive effect. 

Date of decision: 18-05-2010
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,Art 1,Art 32,Art 33,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 2,Article 6,Article 13,Article 34,Article 35,Article 41,UN Convention against Torture,Art. 3