Case summaries
To determine whether there is a violation of Articles 2 and 3 ECHR in the context of expulsion, the Court analyses if the Applicant has presented substantial grounds on (i) whether he faces a real risk of ill-treatment or death in the country of destination, and (ii)whether the national authorities carried out an adequate assessment of the evidence. States have an obligation to analyse the risk ex propio motu when they are aware of facts that could expose an individual to the risk of treatment prohibited by Articles 2 and 3 ECHR. If the domestic jurisdictions didn’t carry out a proper assessment, the Court analyses the risk on its own on the basis of the parties submissions, international reports and its own findings.
States have an obligation, under Article 5 § 1 ECHR, to act with due diligence and impose a reasonable period of detention pending expulsion. Article 5 § 4 ECHR is breached if detained individuals can’t obtain a revision of their detention before a domestic court.
The conditions of detention amounted to a violation of Article 3, in so far as the applicant remained in isolation, in a container with inadequate natural light and ventilation, for a significant amount of time and without any consideration of alternatives. The applicant’s unnecessary placement in a part of the detention facility that was reserved for Covid-19 quarantine also exposed him to health risk.
The applicant’s detention was not lawful under Article 5 (1) ECHR, as it lasted for fourteen months, the authorities were aware that the deportation was not feasible and failed to pursue the matter with diligence. Article 34 was also violated due to irregularities in the manner that legal aid was provided to the applicant and the lack of confidentiality and support during his communication with the Court while he was in detention.
The Court decided that the applicants’ arrest and detention were unlawful under Article 5 of the Convention. The eighth applicant’s complaint under Article 3 that she, a minor at the time, was not provided with adequate care in detention in connection with her pregnancy and the miscarriage she suffered was not accepted by the Court.
The detention of children is, in principle, permitted under Article 5 ECHR for the shortest amount of time, in appropriate conditions and facilities, and only after the Government has correctly concluded that less coercive measures are unavailable.
The complaint of the applicants under Article 3 are manifestly unfounded.
Confinement of asylum applicants in an airport transit zone is contrary to Art. 5 § 1 (f) in the absence of any domestic legal basis for the applicants’ deprivation of liberty.
Confinement of asylum seekers left to their own devices in airport transit zones under the control of border authorities, without unimpeded access to shower or cooking facilities, outdoor exercise and medical or social assistance amount to degrading and inhuman conditions under Art. 3 ECHR if protracted for a long time.
When State Parties do not examine an application for international protection in its mertis based on a safe third country clause, Article 3 still requires that they apply a thorough and comprehensive legal procedure to assess the existence of such risk by looking into updated sources regarding the situation in the receiving third country. Hungary violated Article 3 by failing to conduct an efficient and adequate assessment when applying the safe third country clause for Serbia.
Article 5 cannot be considered as ratione materiae applicable to the Röszke transit zone; the applicants' stay there involved a short waiting time in order for Hungary to verify their right to enter, they had entered on their own initiative and they were free to leave the area in the direction of Serbia. The conditions in the transit zone were not found to breach Article 3 because of the restrictive measure's short duration, the possibility for human contact and the applicants' awareness of the procedure.
Conditions in police stations do not justify prolonged detention, while the child’s extreme vulnerability should prevail over irregular status with necessary measures adopted to protect them. Domestic authorities had not done all that could reasonably expected to fulfil their obligation in light of their vulnerability.
The authorities violated Article 5 by automatically applying the protective custody regime, without considering any alternatives to detention or the requirement under EU law to avoid the detention of children.
Detention in police stations, places that by their very nature are designed to accommodate people for very short durations, may amount to degrading and inhuman conditions under Art. 3 ECHR if protracted for a long time.
Detention of a person with a view to deportation is contrary to Art. 5 § 1 (f) if unlawful under the Convention or domestic law.
Delays in the asylum procedure which cannot be imputed to the asylum seeker, and failure to consider less coercive alternatives when detention exceeds reasonable time limits, render detention unlawful.
The continuation of detention beyond the period of 90 days, while the appeal against the decision rejecting the asylum application was still pending, is a disproportionate measure of deprivation of liberty for the applicant. Alternative measures must be considered.