Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Reset
Moxamed Ismaaciil and Abdirahman Warsame v Malta, Application nos. 52160/13 and 52165/13, 12 January 2013
Country of applicant: Somalia

The holding of two Somali nationals in a Maltese detention centre is declared not to be a violation of Article 3 of the Convention; the cumulative effect of the conditions of detention did not amount to inhuman treatment.  The Court accepted that the detention, although lengthy, fell within Article 5 (1) (f). However, the Court declares a violation of Article 5 (4) as the applicants did not have access to judicial review of the decision to detain them, hence they could not challenge the lawfulness of detention. 

Date of decision: 12-01-2013
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 3,Article 5,Article 34,Article 35,Article 44
ECtHR- Mahmundi and others v. Greece, 14902/10, 24 October 2012
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

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). 

Date of decision: 24-10-2012
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 1,Article 3,Article 5,Article 8,Article 13,Article 14,Article 29,Article 34,Article 35,Article 41,Article 44
ECtHR- Labsi v. Slovakia, Application no. 33809/08, 24 September 2012
Country of applicant: Algeria

The European Court of Human Rights held that the expulsion of an Algerian national from Slovakia to Algeria, in contempt of an interim measure issued by the Court, was in violation of Articles 3, 13 and 34 of the Convention.

Date of decision: 24-09-2012
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,Article 2,Article 3,Article 13,Article 15,Article 29,Article 34,Article 35,Article 41,Article 44
ECtHR - I.M. v France, Application No. 9152/09
Country of applicant: Sudan

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.

Date of decision: 02-05-2012
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 8,Art 6,Art 23,Art 9,Art 14,Art 1,Art 33,Art 29,EN - Dublin II Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003,Article 3,Article 13,Article 29,Article 34,Article 35,Article 37,Article 43,Article 44
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- 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- S.D. v. Greece, Application no. 53541/07, 11 September 2009
Country of applicant: Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Article 3 with regards to the applicant’s detention conditions in Soufli and Attiki (Petrou Rali). It further found a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 due to the unlawful detention of the applicant and the lack of remedies to challenge it.

Date of decision: 11-09-2009
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 3,Article 5,Article 13,Article 34,Article 35,Article 41,Article 44
ECtHR-C.G. and others v. Bulgaria, Application no. 1365/07, 24 July 2008
Country of applicant: Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights found that the expulsion of a Turkish national from Bulgaria violated his right to respect for private and family life (Article 8) and his right to an effective remedy (Article 13). What is more, it held that the Bulgarian authorities did not abide with the procedural safeguards relating to the expulsion of nationals. 

Date of decision: 24-07-2008
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 3,Article 8,Article 13,Article 29,Article 34,Article 35,Article 36,Article 41,Article 44
ECtHR - Shamsa v Poland, Application Nos 45355/99 and 45357/99, 27 November 2003
Country of applicant: Libya
Keywords: Detention

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.  

Date of decision: 27-11-2003
Relevant International and European Legislation: European Union Law,Council of Europe Instruments,EN - Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003,EN - Returns Directive, Directive 2008/115/EC of 16 December 2008,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 5,Article 25,Article 26,Article 27,Article 34,Article 41,Article 43,Article 44,Article 52,Article 59,EN - Recast Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2013/33/EU of 26 June 2013
ECtHR - Hilal v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 45276/99, 6 June 2001
Country of applicant: Tanzania

The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the proposed expulsion of a Tanzanian national from the United Kingdom to Tanzania will expose him to inhuman and degrading treatment, in violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

Date of decision: 06-06-2001
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 3,Article 6,Article 8,Article 13,Article 27,Article 31,Article 41,Article 44