ECtHR Communicated cases against France, Sweden and Estonia

Date: 
Thursday, December 20, 2018

The European court of Human Rights has recently communicated three asylum-related cases:

  • Gregorian BIVOLARU against France (application no: 40324/16): The applicant, Mr. Gregorian Bivolaru, is a Romanian national who is the leader of a spiritual yoga movement. In 2004, the applicant was the subject of criminal proceedings in Romania and was detained for a certain period of time and then released. Following his release, he was charged with further offences in Romania. The applicant then fled to Sweden and was recognised as a refugee there. After a Romanian Court issued a European arrest warrant for the applicant, he was arrested in Paris. The French Courts decided, following a preliminary ruling from the CJEU, that as Sweden granted the applicant refugee status before Romania had become a European Union Member State, his status did not constitute an obstacle to the execution date of the European arrest warrant. Therefore, the applicant was deported to Romania, where he is incarcerated. The applicant claims, under articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, that the decision to not take into account his refugee status and extradite him exposed him to a serious risk to his life and physical and moral integrity. Moreover, he complains that it was up to the French authorities, to obtain guarantees from the Romanian authorities that he would be detained in conditions in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention.
  • M.T. and Others against Sweden (application no: 22105/18): The case concerns three applicants, a mother and two children, who are Syrian nationals. One of the children applied for asylum and was granted subsidiary protection status in Sweden. The other two applicants applied for residence permits based on family ties, but these were rejected on the grounds that recipients of subsidiary protection who had requested asylum after 24 November 2015  had been granted temporary residence permits and were not entitled to family reunification. The applicants complain that the Swedish authorities’ refusal to grant the residence permits violates the applicants’ rights to family life as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. The applicants further complain that the difference in treatment, in regard to family reunification, of persons granted refugee status and persons granted subsidiary protection status, constitutes discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8.
  • M.A. against Estonia (application no: 46173/18): The application concerns an Uzbek national’s deportation from Estonia to Russia.  He entered Estonia irregularly from Russia and applied for international protection on the same day. The domestic authorities refused his request. The Supreme Court of Estonia held that the applicant could not be considered as a refugee. Even though substantial grounds had been shown for believing that, if returned to his country of origin, he would face a real risk of suffering serious harm, the request for subsidiary international protection had to also be refused because the applicant was considered as a threat to Estonia’s national security and public order. The applicant complains that deportation from Estonia to Russia would subject him to risk of ill-treatment, contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, if Russia were to transfer him back to Uzbekistan. He further complains of the alleged lack of effectiveness of the domestic remedies with regard to this complaint under Article 3.

This item was reproduced with the permission of ECRE from the weekly ELENA 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. 

                                                     

 

Keywords: 
Best interest of the child
Family reunification
Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
Return