Greece - Special Appeal Committee, 23 July 2012, D.C. v. the Chief of Security and Order of the (former) Ministry of Public Order, Application No. 95/127059

According to information and sources about the country of origin, slavery and human trafficking is a major issue to this day, particularly for indigenous African populations, in the form of “forced provision of services or labour in exchange for clothes, food and/or accommodation, features which are particular to the concept of slavery and/or servitude”. Despite explicit prohibition of slavery in his country of origin, State organisations have been unable to deal with the problem and the exploitation of slaves. Similarly, the courts appear reluctant to deal with criminal proceedings and the victims themselves rarely approach the authorities because of the fear of public outrage in response to the “lack of respect for deep-rooted customs”. An increase has been seen in the number of child slaves being forced by their guardian/religious leader to beg and/or to work as servants. The Committee accepted that the Applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution because there was a reasonable likelihood that he would return to the same or a similar situation of persecution.

None of the grounds as defined by the Convention (Article 1A of the 1951 Convention) – i.e. race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group – applied in order to recognise refugee status.

There was a risk that he would suffer serious harm, as described by Article 15(2)b of Directive 2004/83/EC, since there was a reasonable chance that he would suffer persecution and, more specifically, that there was a serious risk that he would be re-enslaved, especially because of the lack of other means of making a living, the lack of a support network, and his serious health problems – violations of fundamental rights, inhuman and degrading treatment under the said Article.

Additional reasons why the Applicant risked suffering the said harm as per Article 15(2)(b were that the medical and healthcare system in the country of origin is significantly inadequate and ineffective with serious deficiencies in facilities, staff, and medicines; and with extremely limited nursing units and exceptional difficulty accessing treatment. According to the WHO, it is one of the lowest-ranking places regarding the healthcare system, has a life-expectancy of 58 years, high infant mortality, and increased death rates from hypertension and kidney disease. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the Applicant to gain access to medical treatment for his conditions. The general state of poverty and unemployment, the poor economic situation and lack of family support networks are factors aggravating the difficulty of access to employment, insurance and healthcare. His removal would put him in inhuman conditions and expose him to degrading treatment, in violation of Article 3 of the ECHR. His life would be threatened. On this matter, reference was made to the fact that – according to the ECtHR decision in Pretty v. UK – treatment is degrading when it humiliates an individual without respect and diminishes his human dignity, or arouses feelings of fear, anguish or inferiority capable of breaking an individual's moral and physical resistance.