Cases Communicated against Serbia, Greece and Turkey

Date: 
Friday, April 26, 2019

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

  • M.W. v. Serbia (Application no.: 70923/17): The applicant is an unaccompanied Afghan minor who attempted to enter Serbia on three occasions. In the first two attempts, he was sent back to Bulgaria by Serbian and Bulgarian forces respectively. In Bulgaria, he was sent to the Voenna rampa camp where he claims he was subjected to ill-treatment. The applicant entered Serbian territory on his third attempt, following which he was appointed a legal guardian and given a certificate of a claim for asylum. However, the applicant submits that he had no access to a lawyer or to the asylum system. He later left Serbia and, upon return, his temporary residence was revoked and misdemeanour proceedings were launched against him. The applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 3, that he did not have at his disposal any effective domestic remedy in the course of deportation proceedings for his complaints under Article 3. Under Article 6, the applicant complains about the fairness of the misdemeanour proceedings against him.
  • Douaa Khatib and others v. Greece (Application no.: 3566/16): The applicants are the spouse and children of Belal Tello, a Syrian national who died in December 2015 while crossing from Turkey to Greece on board the IMREN I boat. The boat was detected by the Greek coastguard, which demanded the boat stop. However, failing to stop, the Greek coastguard fired upon the boat. Two Syrian nationals were injured, and one of whom, Belal Tello, subsequently died from a bullet that ricocheted off the engine of the boat. The domestic courts found the two crew members of IMREN I responsible for his death and added that the coastguard had acted in accordance with the rules of engagement. This complaint is submitted under Article 2 of the Convention on responsibility of States to protect the lives of individuals in their jurisdiction and to examine whether the use of force was necessary. The complaint is also submitted with regard to the procedural component of Article 2.
  • N.R. v. Turkey (Application no.: 5137/19): The applicant is a Tajik national, who allegedly fled his country for fear of persecution due to his religious beliefs and membership of Tablighi Jamaat. The applicant submits his complaint under Articles 3 and 13 regarding his threatened deportation and the alleged absence of an effective remedy to appeal the deportation order. The Court granted interim measures under Rule 39.
  • H.S. and O.S. v. Turkey (Application nos.: 57059/18 and 57156/18): The applicants are Iraqi nationals who fled to Turkey in 2015. In 2017, criminal proceedings were launched against them on account of their suspected membership of ISIS. A decision was taken for their deportation from Turkey for reasons of public safety. The applicants were subsequently placed in administrative detention. The applicants complain under Articles 2, 3 and 13, concerning their deportation to Iraq where they allege they would face a risk of death or ill-treatment. The case also concerns access to effective remedy to review the lawfulness of their detention. The Court granted interim measures under Rule 39 to prevent deportation of the applicants until further notice.
  • Akkad v. Turkey (Application no.: 1557/19): The applicant is a Syrian national, who fled Syria to Turkey in June 2014. He was granted leave to stay in Turkey under “temporary protection”. In June 2018, he was apprehended near the Greek border in Edirne while trying to leave Turkey irregularly. The applicant was subsequently removed to Syria. The application concerns the applicant’s allegations as to his unlawful deportation to Syria by Turkish authorities in circumstances that had amounted to ill-treatment, the unlawful deprivation of his liberty during that process, and his inability to access an effective remedy to challenge his detention and deportation. The applicant relies on Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 7.

This item was reproduced with the permission of ECRE from the ELENA Weekly Legal Update. 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.