Communicated cases against Finland, Belgium, and Greece

Date: 
Friday, September 27, 2019

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has recently communicated the following asylum-related cases:

  • A. B and Others v Finland (Application No. 41100/19): The applicants are A.B, his wife, and their five children. The family, of Libyan nationality, sought asylum upon arrival in Finland on 28 June 2018 after being issued Schengen visas from Italy. On 28 November 2018, the Finnish Immigration Service sought the family’s removal to Italy, the State responsible for the examination of the asylum application under the Dublin Regulation. The applicants’ appeal of the decision was rejected by the Administrative Court, and subsequently by the Supreme Administrative Court. The applicants complain that their removal to Italy violates their rights under Article 3 of the Convention as the children will not be provided with the necessary facilities to access specialized medical care required. The family also complains of the serious risk of deportation from Italy to Libya if returned. 
  • M. H v Finland (Application 42255/18): The applicant is an Afghan national who now resides in Helsinki after living with foster parents in Iran from the age of 5. The applicant remained in Iran as an unaccompanied child after his foster father was granted refugee status in the United States and his foster mother died. His first asylum application, made on 8 November 2015 was rejected by the Finnish Immigration Service. A second asylum application was made on 17 April 2018, relying on his particular vulnerability due to psychological problems he had developed as a result of the sexual attack suffered in Iran in 2015. The application and all appeals were rejected. The applicant complains that expulsion to Afghanistan would violate his rights under Articles 2 and 3, together with Article 13 of the Convention. He also claims a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 3 if expelled to Afghanistan. He submits that his position would be worse than that of an internally displaced person since he has lived most of his life outside his home country.
     
  • Ngono v Belgium (Application 23057/19): The applicant is a Cameroonian national suffering from diffuse hepatic angiomatosis. A number of procedures have been heard before the Aliens Office and Aliens Litigation Council to seek the removal of the applicant to Cameroon. She complains that her expulsion would be contrary to Article 3 of the Convention due to the lack of specialist medical treatment available upon return.
  • Ashraf Ali (and 11 Others) v Greece (Application 68951/17): The 12 applicants, of Bangladeshi, Georgian, Albanian, Pakistani, and Nigerian nationality, were detained in police stations and detention centres in preparation for deportation. Complaints are made regarding the detention conditions under Article 3 and lawfulness of detention under Article 5(1) of the Convention.
  • A. I and Others v Greece (Application No. 13958/16): The applicants are A.I., an Afghan national, and his two children. They complain that the living conditions in the Idomeni refugee camp were contrary to their rights under Article 3 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 13.

      Based on an unofficial translation by the EWLU team.


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 pusexblished but no responsibility for its accuracy and correctness, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by ECRE.

Keywords: 
Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
Real risk
Return