Communicated cases against France, Russia, Czech Republic and Hungary

Date: 
Wednesday, December 13, 2017

The European Court of Human Rights has recently communicated several asylum-related cases:

  • Khurram v. Hungary (application no. 12625/17): the case concerns the expulsion of a Pakistani national from Hungary to Serbia without the examination of his personal circumstances and his arguments against the measure. The applicant was subsequently subjected to chain refoulement to Pakistan via the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. He complains under Article 4 of Protocol no. 4 that his return was part of a collective expulsion and that he had no effective domestic remedy at his disposal, as required by Article 13 ECHR.
  • H.K. v. Hungary (application no. 18531/17): the case concerns the expulsion of an Iranian citizen who fled his country of origin due to religious persecution and who was apprehended by the Hungarian police when attempting to cross the Hungarian-Serbian border. Together with another Iranian national, he was sent back to Serbia without any examination of his wish to apply for asylum. The applicant is currently seeking asylum in Germany. He complains under Article 4 of Protocol no. 4 that his return was part of a collective expulsion and that he had no effective domestic remedy at his disposal, as required by Article 13 ECHR.
  • Komissarov v. Czech Republic (application no. 20611/17): the case concerns the detention pending extradition of a Russian national who has been living in the Czech Republic since 1998. While in detention, he lodged an asylum application which was rejected. A cassation complaint before the Supreme Administrative Court is now pending. The applicant complains under Article 5(1)(f) ECHR that his detention has been arbitrary and that its length has become unforeseeable for him, also in relation to the length of the asylum proceeding.
  • Moustahi v. France (application no. 9347/14): concerning a national from the Comoros who lived in the French Department of Mayotte since 1994, where he met his wife and had two children. In 2011, his wife was returned to Comoros with their two children. In 2013, the applicant’s children reached Mayotte on board of a makeshift boat together with 17 other migrants and were subjected to identification and removal procedures that same day. Despite their father’s attempt to obtain a suspension of the return decision, his children were returned to Comoros together with 58 adults, 43 children and 2 babies. The applicant complains that the detention conditions experienced by his children and the prompt removal to Comoros without a careful and individualised assessment of their situation amounted to a violation of Article 3 ECHR and Article 5(1)(f) and (4) ECHR. He also complains under Article 8 ECHR due to the authorities’ refusal of his request to get in contact with his children while in detention and under Article 4 of Protocol no 4 claiming that the children were the victims of a collective expulsion.
  • Nasyeri v. Russia (application no. 1098/14): concerning an Afghan national who arrived in Russia in 1995, where he married a Russian national with whom he had two children. He lived in Russia regularly for years with subsequent renewals of his status as a beneficiary of temporary asylum. In 2008 and 2012, the applicant’s requests for temporary asylum were rejected based on, inter alia, the fact that he had failed to take steps to regularise his stay by virtue of his marriage with a Russian national and the belief that the political situation and living conditions in Afghanistan had improved. He appealed against the decisions without success and was subjected to a deportation order with a subsequent five-year entry ban. He complains before the ECtHR that the refusal to grant him asylum and the subsequent deportation order violated his right to respect for family life under Article 8 ECHR, as his family could not be expected to settle in Afghanistan due to linguistic and religious differences.

Based on an unofficial translation by the ELENA Weekly Legal Update.


This item was reproduced with the permission of ECRE from the weekly ELENA legal update supported by the Fundamental Rights and Citizenship Funding Programme and distributed by email. The purpose of these updates is to inform asylum lawyers and legal organizations supporting asylum seekers and refugees of recent developments in the field of asylum law. Please note that the information provided is taken from publicly available information on the internet. Every reasonable effort is made to make the content accurate and up to date at the time each item is published but no responsibility for its accuracy and correctness, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by ECRE, the IRC or its partners.

                                                     

 

Keywords: 
Best interest of the child
Detention
Indirect refoulement