EDAL case summaries
The detention conditions experienced by two Syrians in the Krasnoye Selo facility amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 ECHR. Moreover, the length of detention in most of the applicants’ cases was between eleven and fifteen months, which exceeded what was reasonably required for the purpose of administrative expulsion. Furthermore, they had no access to judicial and periodic review of their continued detention. A violation of Articles 5(1)(f) and 5(4) were found.
The ECtHR reviewed if the detention of a family with three children in a border police’s detention facility would be considered as a breach of Article 3 ECHR.
The Court found that the conditions under which the applicant was detained between 3 November 2013 and 7 January 2014 at the Yalova police headquarters, exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and attained the threshold of degrading treatment proscribed by Article 3.
Prospective extradition of Applicants, members of an established vulnerable group under ECtHR, to a country where the risk of ill-treatment is real shall trigger a violation of Article 3 ECHR. Detention orders not meeting Article 5§1(f) ECHR objective threshold are and should be deemed as unlawful. The plurality of domestic remedies with the same objective does not prescribe their use by the Applicant for the purposes of Article 35§1 ECHR.
The Court ruled that there would be a breach of Article 3 if the applicant were expelled to Tajikistan, that there was a violation of Article 5(4) based on the thirty-five and the seventy days delay of the competent agency processing the translation of the relevant material for the applicant. Finally, the Court found that the detention was lawful and there was no violation of Article 5(1).
The continued and exclusive control of contracting State's authorities over individuals creates, at least, a de facto exercise of jurisdiction for the purposes of Article 1 ECHR.
The ECtHR declared inadmissible the complaints brought by a Senegalese national who had unsuccessfully applied for asylum in Spain due to his fear of being persecuted in his country of origin on the grounds of his sexual orientation. The complaints were considered premature since the Audiencia Nacional had annulled the administrative decision rejecting his asylum application and the asylum procedure had started afresh.
The ECtHR confirms previous decisions stating that Turkish law concerning procedural safeguards of detention continues to violate Article 5 §§ 4, 5 ECHR and that the applicant was not duly informed of the reasons for his detention. Moreover, the Court confirms that the detention conditions in Istanbul Kumkapi Removal Centre violate Article 3 ECHR.
The Court held that detention is considered to be arbitrary within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 ECHR, if the length of the detention exceeds what is reasonable for the purpose pursued. It is to be examined whether the authorities have acted with ‘due diligence’.
In cases, such as the present, where the detention has been upheld for a long period, although lawfully, authorities are required to take additional steps in order to proceed with an asylum claim more speedily. When the detained person can be considered as ‘vulnerable’ a higher level of...
An Eritrean national claimed refugee status in Switzerland as a result of having allegedly been beaten and tortured for his attempt to escape from military service. His attempt to rely on Article 3 of the Convention of Human Rights to avoid an expulsion order issued by the Swiss authorities was denied as a result of his failure to corroborate his story with factual evidence, inconsistencies in his account and the fact that risk of ill-treatment on his return to Eritrea could be mitigated.
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
- (-) Remove ECrtHR Case law filterECrtHR Case law
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 11
- Detention 10
- Effective remedy (right to) 6
- Procedural guarantees 6
- Effective access to procedures 5
- Return 3
- Credibility assessment 2
- Political Opinion 2
- Accelerated procedure 1
- Cessation of protection 1
- Child Specific Considerations 1
- Country of origin 1
- Delay 1
- Dublin Transfer 1
- Family unity (right to) 1
- Indirect refoulement 1
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 1
- Manifestly unfounded application 1
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 1
- Non-refoulement 1
- Obligation to give reasons 1
- Real risk 1
- Religion 1
- Responsibility for examining application 1
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 1
- Safe third country 1
- Serious non-political crime 1
- Sexual orientation 1
- Subsidiary Protection 1
- Torture 1
- Trafficking in human beings 1
- Well-founded fear 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Bangladesh 2
- Eritrea 2
- Iraq 2
- Uzbekistan 2
- Algeria 1
- Ivory Coast 1
- Kenya 1
- Kosovo 1
- Mali 1
- Palestinian Territory 1
- Senegal 1
- Somalia 1
- Sudan 1
- Syria 1
- Tajikistan 1
- Zimbabwe 1