On 11 March 2021, in a Chamber judgment in the case of Feilazoo v. Malta (application no. 6865/19) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights,

a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), and

a violation of Article 34 (right of individual application).

The case concerned the conditions of the applicant’s immigration detention and its lawfulness. It also concerned complaints in relation to the proceedings before this Court, mainly related to interference with correspondence and domestic legal-aid representation. The Court took issue with many aspects of the applicant’s detention, including time spent detained in de facto isolation without exercise, and a subsequent period where he had been detained with people under Covid-19 quarantine unnecessarily. Overall it found the conditions inadequate. The Court also found that the authorities had not been diligent enough in processing his deportation, and that the reasons for the applicant’s detention had ceased to be valid. It also found that the authorities had not guaranteed the applicant’s right to petition before the Court, as they had tampered with his correspondence and had not guaranteed to him adequate legal representation.

On 2 March 2021, in a Chamber judgment in the case of R.R. and Others v. Hungary (application no. 36037/17), the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been:

unanimously, a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights,

by 6 votes to 1, a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), and

by 6 votes to 1, a violation of Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court).

The case concerned the applicants’ confinement in the Röszke transit zone on the border with Serbia. in April-August 2017. The Court found, in particular, that the lack of food provided to R.R. and the conditions of stay of the other applicants (a pregnant woman and children) had led to a violation of Article 3. It also found that that the applicants’ stay in the transit zone had amounted to a de facto deprivation of liberty and that the absence of any formal decision of the authorities and any proceedings by which the lawfulness of their detention could have been decided speedily by a court had led to violations of Article 5.