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 Court found no violation of the Convention given that the applicants would have had access to a genuine and effective possibility of submitting arguments against their expulsion had  they entered lawfully into Spain – they did not have any “cogent reasons” for not using the border procedures available at designated entry points. As such, the lack of an individualised procedure for their removal was the consequence of their own conduct.

Following the careful examination of International, European and domestic law, the Court concluded that the grant of refugee status supersedes any order made by a Family Court (regarding the return of the child to Pakistan), because it is the Secretary of State for the Home Department  that is the entrusted public authority to deal with asylum matters.  However, were the Family Court to discover new facts, the relevant public authority would be responsible, in principle, under the tenets of UK Administrative Law to review their decision. 

After having committed several offences qualified as being of a ‘particular gravity’, Mr.O’s refugee status was revoked on April 21st 2006.

Upon appeal to the Council of Alien Law Litigation (‘CALL’), the question of the validity of article 55/3/1 of December 15th 1980 law (the ‘1980 Law’) arose. Although it is established that this provision is transposing article 14(4) of the Directive 2011/95/EU, its compatibility with the Geneva Convention must be verified.

The Council refuses then to pronounce itself on the question, arguing the competency of such matter is vested in the Court of Justice of the European Union.

The ECtHR ruled that the border-control procedure to which three Eritrean nationals were submitted did not provide adequate safeguards capable of protecting them from arbitrary removal. The applicants were on board a vessel docked in an Ukrainian port and were only allowed to disembark after the ECtHR indicated interim measures for that purpose. Therefore, the ECtHR found a violation of Article 13 ECHR taken in conjunction with Article 3 ECHR.

The judgment concerns the scope of Article 21 of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 with regards to derogation from protection from refoulement and the possibility to revoke a residence permit issued to a refugee pursuant to Article 24 of said Directive. 

The Appellant appealed to the Upper Tribunal on the ground that he qualified for subsidiary protection under Article 2(e) and (f) of the Qualification Directive and was therefore entitled to a residence permit under Article 24(2) of the Qualification Directive.

In dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal found that: (a) Article 24 of the Qualification Directive does not confer a substantive right of residence in the member state concerned but rather its function is to determine the modalities whereby a right of residence otherwise existing is to be documented, and (b) the Procedures Directive is a truly adjectival instrument of EU legislation which does not create any substantive rights in the realm of asylum or subsidiary protection.

The case examined the allegations of the applicant that his proposed expulsion to Turkey would place him at risk of inhuman and degrading treatment and would jeopardize his physical and health integrity.

The Court found no violation of the articles 2 and 3 of the Convention and held the claimed violations of articles 6 and 8 to be unfounded.

The Respondent erred in detaining the Applicant under § 88a (1)(a) point 1 of Act No 404/2011 Coll. on the residence of aliens and amending certain other Acts in proceedings relating to administrative expulsion to the Ukraine, despite being aware of the Applicant’s intention to apply for asylum. The Respondent also incorrectly assessed whether Ukraine is a safe third country as he failed to take into account recent information on the current situation in Ukraine. Moreover, in assessing the risk of absconding, the Respondent asked improper questions. As such the Respondent's conduct violates principles of good governance.

The case concerns the unlawfulness of the detention pending expulsion for a total period of more than one year and eight months without effective judicial review of one of the applicants, Mr. Abas Amie (Articles 5 § 1, 5 § 4 of the ECHR); and an unlawful interference with the right to respect for family life, in breach of Article 8 of the ECHR, with respect to the other applicants, his family members.