EDAL case summaries
The ECtHR ruled that the Greek authorities had failed in their positive obligation under Article 8 ECHR to guarantee that the applicant’s asylum request is examined within a reasonable time in order to ensure that his situation of insecurity, which impinges upon several elements of his private life, is as short-lived as possible.
The return of a third country national woman or girl to a country where female genital mutilation is traditionally practised is not a breach of Art. 3 of the Convention where her family (including her possible husband) has the will and the possibility to ensure that she will not be subjected to that practice.
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 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.
In this judgement, the Court held that there was a violation of article 3 of the Convention concerning the detention conditions of the applicant at the premises of the executive subcommittee of the Thessaloniki foreign police. There was also a violation of article 5 para 1 (f) concerning the duration of his detention and para 4 with regards to the judicial review of his detention.
The case examines the risk to an Iranian national if expelled to Iran in light of his political activities against the country’s regime. The Court confirmed that such a return would give rise to a violation of Article 3 ECHR and whilst finding an Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 3 violation as admissible it raised no separate issue in the case.
Asylum seeker’s return to Iran would not violate Article 2 or 3 because the risk of political persecution was unsubstantiated and peripheral and his conversion to Christianity was likely unknown to the authorities.
Swiss deportation to Sudan of non-high-profile political opponent of Sudanese government would risk inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled that Turkey had violated Article 5 para 1 and 4 of the Convention with regards to the applicant’s unlawful detention and lack of remedy to challenge the lawfulness of his deprivation of liberty. Further, it found a violation of Article 34.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled that Turkey had violated Article 5 para 1 and 4 of the Convention with regards to the applicant’s unlawful detention and lack of remedy to challenge the lawfulness of his deprivation of liberty. Further, it found a violation of Article 34.
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
- (-) Remove ECrtHR Case law filterECrtHR Case law
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Political Opinion filterPolitical Opinion
- Effective remedy (right to) 10
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 10
- Refugee Status 9
- Country of origin information 7
- Detention 7
- Well-founded fear 7
- Real risk 6
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 4
- Protection 4
- Torture 4
- Burden of proof 3
- Credibility assessment 3
- Effective access to procedures 3
- Final decision 3
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 3
- Non-refoulement 3
- Refugee sur place 3
- Return 3
- Individual threat 2
- Material reception conditions 2
- Persecution (acts of) 2
- Personal circumstances of applicant 2
- Personal interview 2
- Relevant Documentation 2
- Religion 2
- Access to the labour market 1
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 1
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 1
- Benefit of doubt 1
- Country of origin 1
- Death penalty / Execution 1
- Delay 1
- Education (right to) 1
- Exclusion from protection 1
- Family unity (right to) 1
- Female genital mutilation 1
- Health (right to) 1
- Inadmissible application 1
- Individual assessment 1
- Internal armed conflict 1
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 1
- Manifestly unfounded application 1
- Membership of a particular social group 1
- Nationality 1
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 1
- Previous persecution 1
- Procedural guarantees 1
- Race 1
- Reception conditions 1
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 1
- Serious harm 1
- Subsidiary Protection 1
- Terrorism 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Iran 6
- Turkey 5
- Sudan 2
- Belarus 1
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 1
- Croatia 1
- Kazakhstan 1
- Tanzania 1
- Uzbekistan 1