New communicated cases against Greece, Russia, The Netherlands, and Hungary

Date: 
Friday, November 15, 2019
  • M.A v Greece (Application No. 14222/16): The applicant, a Sudanese national, was convicted of a criminal offence in February 2013 and was later granted refugee status in April 2014. The applicant was returned to Greece in October 2015, where he was detained in the Amygdaleza detention centre. In April 2015, the applicant’s refugee status was revoked. All appeals against the decision were dismissed and the applicant was transferred to the Aliens Sub-Directorate of Attica. He complains that his detention is incompatible with Article 3 ECHR, particularly based on his health due to his diabetes diagnosis. He also complains that his detention was unlawful under Article 5 § 1 and that the decision to revoke his refugee status was contrary to Article 5 § 2 as it was not communicated promptly in a language that could be understood. Finally, he complains that he did not have the opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of detention contrary to Article 5 § 4.

         Based on an unofficial translation by the EWLU team.

  • Sedo v Greece (Application No. 2080/19): The applicant, an Iraqi national, was arrested for entering Greece from Turkey irregularly in May 2018. She was detained for three days before her expulsion was ordered. The expulsion proceedings were suspended on the condition that she remained in the Samos Hotspot while her application for international protection was processed. In December 2018, the suspension of the expulsion order was lifted on the basis that the applicant had breached the conditions relating to restricted movement. She was subsequently detained in the Sidirokastro police station and transferred to pre-removal detention centre for foreigners in Tavros. The applicant complains that the detention conditions in these facilities were contrary to Article 3 ECHR. She also complains under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 that there existed no effective remedy to challenge the detention conditions and restricted movement. The applicant further complains that her detention was unlawful under Article 5 § 1 and that no remedy was available to challenge the lawfulness of detention contrary to Article 5 § 4.

         Based on an unofficial translation by the EWLU team.

  • N.K and A.Y v Russia (Application Nos. 45761/18 and 20033/19): The applicants are both Tajik nationals who face return from Russia. N.K complains under Article 3 ECHR that there is a real risk of ill treatment if removed to Tajikistan and alleges that there existed no effective remedy in relation to his Article 3 complaint under Article 13. He also complains that his detention in various institutions in St. Petersburg was contrary to Article 3. Finally he complains that the review of his detention pending extradition took 60 days and was therefore contrary to Article 5 § 4. A.Y complains under Article 5 § 1 (f) and § 4 that there were a lack of grounds for continued detention pending expulsion and a lack of judicial review mechanisms to challenge the lawfulness of detention.
  • M.T v The Netherlands (Application No. 46595/19): The applicant, an Eritrean mother and her two young children, were denied international protection status by Dutch authorities on the basis that Italy was responsible for this procedure under the Dublin Regulation. The applicant complains that the return of her family to Italy without individual guarantees from Italian authorities that they would have adequate reception facilities adapted to the young age of the children and access to health care would amount to a violation of Article 3 ECHR.
  • S.B v Hungary (Application No. 15977/17): The case concerns the detention of a Pakistani child applicant of international protection between 23 June and 23 August 2016. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 that there was no legal basis for their detention and that their detention was not carried out in accordance with procedures prescribed by law.

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.

 

 

Keywords: 
Detention
Dublin Transfer
Effective remedy (right to)
Return
Revocation of protection status