Communicated cases: H.A. v Greece (Application No. 59670/19), H.T. v Greece and Germany (Application No. 13337/19), A. A. v Poland (Application No. 47888/19), Poklikayew v Poland (Application No. 1103/16) and Khurram v Hungary (Application No. 37967/18)

Friday, January 17, 2020
  • H.A. v Greece (Application No. 59670/19): The applicant, an Ethiopian national, complains that her living conditions on the Samos Island were contrary to Article 3 ECHR. At the time of making an application for international protection the applicant was 7 months pregnant and without adequate shelter. It is also alleged that the State failed to comply with interim measures granted by the Court. 

         Based on an unofficial translation by the EWLU team.

  • H.T. v Greece and Germany (Application No. 13337/19): The applicant, a Syrian national, arrived in Greece and was detained with a view to arrange his return to Turkey. In July 2018, the applicant registered an application for asylum. This process was interrupted after he was arrested in Germany in September 2018. He was subsequently returned to Greece and detained at Athens airport before being transferred to the Reception and Identification Centre on Leros Island. Following his asylum interview, the applicant was identified as vulnerable due to depression and transferred to Leros police station. The applicant objected to this detention. He complains that his return to Greece was incompatible with Article 3 ECHR and that he was unable to access an effective remedy to challenge his return. He also complains that his detention in Greece was in violation of his rights under Articles 3, 5 § 1 and 5 § 4 ECHR.

         Based on an unofficial translation by the EWLU team.

  • A. A. v Poland (Application No. 47888/19): The applicant, a Burundi national arrived in Poland in January 2019. Upon arrival they allegedly presented a fake Swiss ID and were detained in Ketrzyn Guarded Centre for Aliens. The applicant submitted an international protection claim due to violence occurring during unrest in her country of origin. They also claimed to be a victim of wartime rape. A medical evaluation found that the applicant did not suffer from PTSD but confirmed that she was a victim of violence and required psychological treatment. The applicant remains in detention including after the rejection of her asylum claim. The applicant complains that their detention is in violation of Articles 5 § 1 (f) and Article 5 § 4 ECHR.
  • Poklikayew v Poland (Application No. 1103/16): The applicant, a Belarusian national, was granted a permanent residence permit after arriving in Poland on an unknown date. In January 2012, an order was made to expel the applicant due to them posing a threat to the security of the State as they were allegedly collaborating with the Belarusian secret service. In March 2012, the applicant was expelled. The applicant complains that their expulsion was ordered despite a number of procedural shortcomings and that he and his lawyer were unable to access parts of his case file in violation of Article 6 ECHR. He also complains under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 that he had no access to appeals with suspensive effect.
  • Khurram v Hungary (Application No. 37967/18): The applicant is a Pakistani national who arrived in Hungary from Serbia in August 2016. The applicant complains of being subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR after he was beaten and forcibly escorted back to Serbia by Hungarian authorities. He also complains that the investigation into this matter was superficial and inadequate.

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.

Effective access to procedures
Effective remedy (right to)
Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect)