Case summaries

Article 3 ECHR is triggered in cases involving the removal of a seriously ill individual where the absence of appropriate treatment in the receiving country or the lack of access to such treatment, exposes the individual to a serious, rapid and irreversible decline in his or her state of health resulting in intense suffering or to a significant reduction in life expectancy.

Access to sufficient and appropriate medical care must be available in reality, not merely in theory and the impact of removal on an applicant must be assessed by considering how an applicant’s condition would evolve after transfer to the receiving State.

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.

In this case, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) revisited the conditions of Mogadishu, Somalia as it relates to an alleged violation of Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).

In the specific case, the ECtHR held that:

1) While the general conditions of Mogadisuh remain serious and fragile, objective reports support the finding that such conditions are not sufficient to find a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR; and

2) While the ECtHR acknowledged that the applicant in the present case faces a different threat as a woman and that several objective reports described the serious and widespread sexual and gender-based violence in the country, the Court was concerned with the applicant’s credibility.

The case relates to a Sudanese national of Tunjur origin who claimed a risk of being subjected to ill-treatment if expelled to Sudan on the grounds of his ethnic origin and supposed ties with the JEM, the rebels’ movement against the regime in Sudan. 

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. 

The case examined the allegations of three applicants of Chechen origin that their deportation to Russia would place them in conditions amounting to inhumane and degrading treatment. Their allegations were based on the general situation of Chechens in Russia as well as on an individual risk of the first applicant because of his documentary work, recording the execution of villagers by the Russian federal troops.

The Court found that the deportation of the applicants to Russia would give rise to a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The detention of asylum applicants may undermine their ability to claim asylum and that an ‘effective remedy’ requires an appeal with suspensive effect against refoulement in order to prevent irreparable harm, sufficient time to prepare the appeal and effective legal assistance and interpretation.

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 Court found that the French authorities had violated Article 5 para 1 of the Convention by holding four Somali nationals in the international zone of the Paris-Orly airport.

The ECtHR held that the 1980 UK Immigration Rules breached ECHR Article 14 taken together with Article 8 as they discriminated on the ground of sex against three female applicants settled in the UK who wished to be joined by their spouses. It was easier for men settled in the UK to be joined by a non-national spouse than women but no objective and reasonable justification was found for this difference of treatment.