ECtHR - Inadmissibility decisions and cases struck out of the ECtHR’s list

Thursday, October 19, 2017

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has recently declared inadmissible or decided to strike out of its list a number of asylum-related cases:

  • E.S. v. Spain (no. 13273/16): the case concerned the deportation of a homosexual Senegalese national from Spain to Senegal and raised the question of concealment of one’s sexual orientation as persecution. The ECtHR ruled the complaint inadmissible as the application for international protection was pending before the administrative authorities after being sent back by the court of appeal and the complaint should, thus, be considered “premature”.
  • S.T. v. Sweden (no. 10984/16) and C.A. and P.A. v. Sweden (no. 75348/16): the first case concerned a complaint by an Ethiopian national against a Dublin transfer from Sweden to Hungary, while the second case concerned a Dublin transfer from Sweden to Italy of two Nigerian nationals. The ECtHR decided to strike both applications out of its list after being informed that, following the expiry of the time-limits to transfer the applicants under the Dublin III Regulation, the Swedish Migration Agency assumed responsibility for the asylum applications.
  • Y.L. v. Switzerland (no. 53110/16): the case concerned the removal of a Chinese national, member of the “Church of the Almighty God”, from Switzerland to China. The ECtHR declared the complaint inadmissible as it found that the assessment by the domestic authorities, who had found that the applicant’s account lacked credibility, were adequate and sufficiently reasoned.
  • A.S. v. Belgium (no. 68739/14): the case concerned the pending removal from Belgium to Thailand, and from there to Iraq, of a Iraqi national. The ECtHR found the complaint inadmissible since, inter alia, the general security situation in Iraq in itself does not prevent removals to that country, the Belgian authorities had adequately assessed the credibility of the applicant’s account, and the applicant had failed to substantiate his claim that there was no available effective remedy in Belgium to challenge his removal.
  • M.S. v. Hungary (no. 64194/16) and H.J. v. Hungary (no. 70984/16): the cases concerned Somali nationals who had applied for asylum in Hungary and complained that a Dublin transfer to Greece would violate their rights under Article 3 ECHR. The ECtHR struck the cases out of its list since the asylum proceedings in Hungary were discontinued and the applicants’ applied for asylum in Austria and Germany, respectively. The ECtHR concluded that the applicants would not face a future risk of being transferred to Hungary or Greece, based on the available information regarding the constrained resumption of Dublin transfers to Greece and the cautious treatment of transfers to Hungary.
Based on an unofficial translation by the ELENA Weekly Legal Update.

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.



Credibility assessment
Dublin Transfer
Effective access to procedures
Effective remedy (right to)
Inadmissible application
Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
Sexual orientation