EDAL case summaries
The applicant appealed against a deportation order on account of the high risk that he faced of being subject to treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR in the case of return to Russia.
An Article 3 compliant assessment requires a full and ex nunc evaluation of a claim. Where the State is made aware of facts that could expose an applicant to an individual risk of ill-treatment, regardless of whether the applicant chooses to rely on such facts, it is obliged to assess this risk ex proprio motu.
The applicants, a stateless Palestinian from Syria and two Syrian nationals, had been ordered to be expelled to Syria by the Russian authorities, and were detained in a detention centre in Russia pending this. The Court found that their expulsion to Syria would breach Articles 2 and 3, that Articles 5(4) and 5(1)(f) had been violated with regards to their detention, and that the restrictions on their contact with their representatives had breached Article 34.
In this case, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) revisited the conditions of Mogadishu, Somalia as it relates to an alleged violation of Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).
In the specific case, the ECtHR held that:
1) While the general conditions of Mogadisuh remain serious and fragile, objective reports support the finding that such conditions are not sufficient to find a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR; and
2) While the ECtHR acknowledged that the applicant in the present case faces a different threat as a woman and that several...
The applicant, an Iranian national, had fled Iran in light of the risks he faced there as a political dissident, and had been detained in Greece with a view to being expelled to Iran. The Court held that the Greek authorities had violated Articles 3 concerning his conditions of detention, 3 and 13 combined because of the lack of an effective remedy to complain about these conditions, the failings of the asylum procedure and the risk of being sent back to Iran, and 5(4) with respect to the inefficient judicial review of the detention.
Trafficking in human beings falls under the prohibition of Art. 4 of the Convention. Consequently, state parties have the positive obligation:
- to adopt an adequate and comprehensive legal framework to combat this criminal offence;
- to undertake protective measures whenever the authorities are aware or ought to have been aware of a serious risk of a person being subject to trafficking;
- and to appropriately investigate situations of potential trafficking.
A potential violation of Art. 3 of the Convention can be found when a person risks to be extradited to a country where practice of ill-treatment of detainees are reported by reliable sources, notwithstanding possible assurances by the involved public prosecutors of that country.
Given the irreversible and particular serious nature of the harm which might occur if risks relevant under art. 3 of the Convention materialise, an effective remedy to avoid such a harm within the meaning of art. 13 of the Convention requires both an independent and rigorous scrutiny of a claim...
The European Court of Human Rights held that the expulsion of an Eritrean deserter to Eritrea would give rise to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
The case involved two Uzbek nationals who were extradited to Uzbekistan by Turkey after Uzbekistan claimed they had committed terror-related crimes, while the applicants countered that they were political dissidents and would face ill-treatment and torture if returned. Despite the Court ordering interim measures to defer, Turkey extradited both and they were sentenced to terms of imprisonment. The Court found no violations of Art. 2, 3, or 6, but did find a violation of Art. 34 for Turkey’s non-compliance with the interim measures.
The application concerned the violations of Articles 2, 3 and 13 of the Convention following police officers’ excess powers used against the applicant during his arrest. The Court held that to be a violation of Article 2.
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
- (-) Remove ECrtHR Case law filterECrtHR Case law
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Protection filterProtection
- Real risk 7
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 6
- Effective remedy (right to) 5
- Refugee Status 5
- Country of origin information 4
- Credibility assessment 4
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 4
- Political Opinion 4
- Torture 4
- Country of origin 3
- Final decision 3
- Personal circumstances of applicant 3
- Well-founded fear 3
- Armed conflict 2
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 2
- Detention 2
- Effective access to procedures 2
- Manifestly unfounded application 2
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 2
- Membership of a particular social group 2
- Non-refoulement 2
- Persecution (acts of) 2
- Procedural guarantees 2
- Accelerated procedure 1
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 1
- Actors of protection 1
- Benefit of doubt 1
- Burden of proof 1
- Gender Based Persecution 1
- Indiscriminate violence 1
- Individual assessment 1
- Individual threat 1
- Internal armed conflict 1
- Nationality 1
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 1
- Previous persecution 1
- Refugee sur place 1
- Religion 1
- Return 1
- Safe country of origin 1
- Serious harm 1
- Trafficking in human beings 1
- Visa 1
- Vulnerable person 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Iran 2
- Russia 2
- Eritrea 1
- Greece 1
- Kazakhstan 1
- Somalia 1
- Sri Lanka 1
- Syria 1
- Uzbekistan 1