On 22 September 2022, the European Court of Human Rights published its judgment in the case H.K. v. Hungary. The case concerned the expulsion of an Iranian asylum-seeker after his irregular entry into Hungary. The applicant had irregularly crossed to Hungary after several attempts and reportedly asked for asylum. Nevertheless, according to the judgment, the applicant (and other seventy-six individuals during the same day) were removed from Hungary without receiving any information or documents. The Court referred to its previous judgment in Shahzad v. Hungary (application no. 12625/17) to declare that, due to the similarities, the removal of the applicant in the present case at hand also amounted to collective expulsion within the meaning of Article 4 of Protocol no. 4 to the Convention in the absence of any decision and examination of the applicant’s individual situation. The ECtHR additionally noted that when the applicant irregularly entered the country and was subsequently removed, he was given no information as to whether or when he could access the Hungarian asylum procedure. The Court acknowledged that, in contrast to the Shahzad case, the applicant had eventually entered the transit zone to apply for asylum after months of waiting in Serbia and failed attempts or irregular entry; however, according to the ruling, this is not sufficient to change the consideration regarding the compliance of his removal with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). For these reasons, the Court concluded that the applicant’s removal was of a collective nature, which consequently violated Article 4 of Protocol no. 4 to the Convention. Additionally, the Court also found a violation of Article 13 of the ECHR taken in conjunction with Article 4 of Protocol no. 4 to the Convention.
On 27 September 2022, the European Court of Human Rights handed down a judgment in the case of
Otite v. the United Kingdom. The Court of Human Rights held, by five votes to two, that there would be:
no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on
Human Rights if the applicant were deported from the United Kingdom to Nigeria. The case concerned a Nigerian national being served in October 2015 with notice of his liability to deportation, despite having been granted Indefinite Leave to Remain in the UK in 2004. The notice came after his conviction in 2014 on two counts of conspiracy to make or supply articles for use in fraud which had resulted in a four-year-and-eight-month prison sentence. His appeal against deportation was dismissed as the Upper Tribunal concluded that the effect on his wife and children, all British citizens, would not be “unduly harsh”.
The Court found in particular that the strength of the applicant’s family and private life in the UK did
not outweigh the public interest in his deportation.
On 15 September 2022, the European Court of Human Rights handed down a judgment in the case of O.M. and D.S. v. Ukraine. The applicants, O.M. and D.S., are Kyrgyz nationals who were born in 1968 and 2007 respectively and live in the Netherlands. O.M. is D.S.’s mother. O.M. – an ethnic Ukrainian – was a journalist and former member of the Kyrgyz Parliament. In 2010, following O.M.’s husband’s suspicious death, civil unrest and her having been charged with connected crimes, the applicants fled Kyrgyzstan for Kazakhstan, ultimately electing to move to Europe to seek asylum there. The case concerns their treatment in Kyiv Airport by the authorities when they sought protection on arrival. They were removed to Georgia. They were ultimately given asylum in the Netherlands, allegedly on account of their fear of ill-treatment and an unfair trial if returned to Kyrgyzstan.
Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), and Article 34 (right of individual application), the applicants complain, in particular, that their removal to Georgia was in breach of the interim measure indicated by the Court and did not take account of the risk to them of real harm if returned to Kyrgyzstan, of a lack of an effective remedy in that respect, and of unlawful detention by Ukrainian border guards. The court found a violation of Articles 3 and 34.
On 25 August 2022, the European Court of Human Rights handed down a judgment in the case of W.O. and Others v. Hungary. The case concerned the confinement of the applicant family in the Röszke transit zone at the border of Hungary and Serbia, between 23 April and 19 November 2018. The applicants submitted asylum requests upon their arrival to the transit zone and asylum proceedings were suspended because of the attempted forced return of the applicants to Bulgaria. The Court relied in the similarity of this case with R.R. and Others v. Hungary (final as of April 2013) and also found a violation of Articles 3, 5(1) and 4(4) of the Convention.