Communicated cases against France (50940/20) and Greece (22776/18)

• Communicated case against France

The case of D.M v France (application no: 50940/20) concerns the expulsion of a Russian national from France to Russia. The applicant complains under Article 2, 3 and 8 ECHR taken separately and in conjunction with Article 13 ECHR.
 
In this context, the ECtHR first asks several questions regarding the removal, including: (i) will the applicant face a risk of inhuman and degrading treatment, contrary to Article 2 and 3 ECHR, in case of removal, (ii) does his personal situation entail a specific risk, (iii) what are the assurances that the French authorities obtained from the Russian authorities before sending the applicant back to Russia and (iv) how have the French authorities established the absence of a risk. It further enquired whether the French authorities had taken any steps to accompany the applicant during his removal.

It is also asked whether the domestic remedies had been exhausted with respect to Article 8 ECHR and if so, did the expulsion constitute a breach of Article 8. Moreover, the Court asks whether the applicant had an effective remedy available to him to pursue his complaints, as required by Article 13 ECHR.

Based on an unofficial translation by the EWLU team.

• Communicated case against Greece

The applicants in the case of Mohammed Hussein Hasan Almukhlas and Huda Hadi Kareem Al‑Maliki v Greece (application no. 22776/18) are the parents of Ameer Mokhlas, an Iraqi national who died on 29 August 2015 at the age of seventeen as a result of an incident on board a yacht, the YAVUZUM 16, which was carrying 93 passengers to Greece. The applicants’ son was on the YAVUZUM 16 for the purpose of travelling to Greece in order to seek asylum. The incident involved two traffickers on the yacht, a FRONTEX boat and the Greek Coast Guard. V.M, the Greek Coast Guard, shot one of the traffickers however, their son, who was downstairs in the boat's cabin, was hit by the shots and died as a result. On 11 October 2017, the Indictments Chamber of the Maritime Court of Piraeus decided not to prosecute V.M. (Order No. 33/2017).
 
The Court asks, in light of the obligation under Article 2 ECHR to take necessary measures to protect persons within their jurisdiction, was the right to life of the applicant’s son violated, having regard to the applicants’ allegations that the Greek authorities failed to take appropriate action to plan and carry out the action with the primary aim of protecting the persons on board the vessel and in particular through the reckless use of weapons that resulted in the death of their son. It further asked whether the investigation carried out by the domestic authorities following the death of their son satisfied the requirements of Article 2 ECHR.

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