Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Reset
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 - Muskhadzhiyeva and Others v. Belgium, Application No. 41442/07
Country of applicant: Russia (Chechnya)

Detaining children in a closed centre designed for adults is unlawful and ill-suited to their extreme vulnerability, even though they were accompanied by their mother.

Date of decision: 19-01-2010
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 16,Article 3,Art 5.1,Art 5.4
ECtHR - Tabesh v. Greece, Application no. 8256/07, 26 November 2009
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

This case related to the conditions of detention at the Thessaloniki Aliens’ Police Directorate in Greece, the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention pending deportation and whether there was had been an effective judicial remedy to challenge his detention.

The Court found that there was a violation of Article 3 as the conditions at the detention centre were inhuman and degrading. The length of his detention violated Article 5(1) as it exceeded the time considered reasonable for the purpose of carrying out his deportation, given the Greek authorities lack of diligence. Domestic law in Greece was incompatible with the safeguards provided for in Article 5(4). 

Date of decision: 26-11-2009
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 3,Article 5,Article 35,Article 41,Art 5.1,Art 5.4
ECtHR - Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey, (no. 30471/08), 22 September 2009
Country of applicant: Iran

The applicants, who had been recognised as refugees by UNHCR, faced risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 upon Turkey’s proposed  deportation of them to either Iran or Iraq. They had no effective opportunity to make an asylum claim or challenge their deportation. Further their detention had no legal justification and they had been unable to challenge its lawfulness. The Court found violations of Article 3, 13, 5(1), 5(2) and 5(4). 

Date of decision: 22-09-2009
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,Council of Europe Instruments,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 3,Article 5,Article 13,Art 5.1,Art 5.2,Art 5.4
Czech Republic - Supreme Administrative Court, 15 April 2009, K.K. v Ministry of Interior, 1 As 12/2009-61
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

When a decision on detention is being made it is necessary to consider if the person is a refugee (asylum seeker) and subsequently if expulsion is feasible, and therefore the only permissible purpose of detention.

Date of decision: 15-04-2009
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005,Art 6.2,Art 18,Art 31,EN - Returns Directive, Directive 2008/115/EC of 16 December 2008,4.,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Art 5.4
ECtHR - Čonka v Belgium, Application no. 51564/99, 5 February 2002
Country of applicant: Slovakia

The applicants were unlawfully detained and had no effective remedy to challenge their detention. There was a finding that they had been collectively expelled, given the context of their expulsion along with many others of the same nationality, and as their individual circumstances had not been adequately taken into consideration. 

Date of decision: 05-02-2002
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 5,Article 13,Art 5.1,Art 5.2,Art 5.4,ECHR (Fourth Protocol),Art 4