ECtHR Communicated cases against Russia, Greece, France, Denmark and Switzerland

Tuesday, September 5, 2017

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

  • Sharkar v. Greece (no. 15641/12): the case concerns a Bangladeshi national who, for the purposes of introducing a request for a residence permit, was required to withdraw his asylum application lodged two years earlier. His request for a residence permit was rejected and he lived without a residence permit (thus, without access to social security, healthcare and labour market) until 2011, when his appeal was accepted by a Greek Court. The ECtHR asked the parties questions under Article 8 ECHR regarding the impact for his private life of his lack of permit during that period.
  • Mohammad v. Denmark (no. 16711/15): the applicant is an Algerian national who reached Denmark at the age of 14. After his request for asylum was rejected, he was granted a residence permit as an unaccompanied minor. The applicant had problems with drug abuse and was convicted four times for different crimes. Following a High Court decision in 2014, he was returned from Denmark to Algeria. He complains that his expulsion led to a violation of his rights under Article 8 ECHR.
  • Khan v. France (no. 12267/16): the case concerns an Afghan unaccompanied minor who lived in the makeshift camp in Calais. He complains under Article 3, 6 and 13 that the national authorities did not comply with a court order that he had to be provisionally placed in a social aid reception facility. The applicant also raises alleged violations of Article 8 ECHR and Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR (right to property).
  • Allaa Kaak and others v. Greece (no. 34215/16): the complaints are brought by 51 applicants of different nationalities, under Article 3 ECHR (conditions at the Greek hotspots of Vial and Souda in Chios) and Article 5 §§ 1, 2 and 4 (detention in the hotspots).
  • Miran v. Russia (no. 12030/16): the case concerns an Iraqi applicant who had been granted refugee status in Syria and who, in 2011, moved to Russia for study purposes. Following the expiry of his permit, he repeatedly applied for refugee status but his applications were not accepted for consideration “due to lack of quota for granting asylum” in the region. The applicant is currently held pending expulsion due to his irregular situation in Russia. He complains under Article 5 §§ 1 (f) and 4 that his detention has been too long and that Russian law does not provide for a judicial review of such detention.
  • A.A. v. Switzerland (32218/17): the applicant is an Afghan national who complains that his return from Switzerland to Afghanistan would violate his rights under Article 3 ECHR due to his conversion to Christianity.

This item was reproduced with the permission of ECRE from the weekly ELENA legal update supported by the Fundamental Rights and Citizenship Funding Programme and distributed by email. 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, the IRC or its partners.



Family reunification
Family unity (right to)
Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment