On 4 April 2023, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled in the case in the case of A.D. v. Greece, finding that the situation to which the applicant was subjected exceeded the threshold of severity required to engage Article 3 (prohibition of torture) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case concerned the living conditions of the applicant, a woman who was pregnant at the time of lodging her application with the Court. She arrived in Samos on 16 August 2019 and resided at the Samos Reception and Identification Centre (RIC). On 23 October 2019 she lodged a request for an interim measure before the Court, which was granted. On 4 November 2019 the applicant was admitted to the General Hospital of Samos and on 7 November 2019 she gave birth to her daughter. The applicant was hospitalised until 11 November 2019, and was subsequently moved to a guest house on the island of Samos. On 22 November 2019 she applied for international protection and on 10 March 2020 she was transferred to the mainland by the authorities.

In the case Loukili v. the Netherlands, concerning the revocation of the applicant’s residence permit, a return decision and a 10-year ban on him re-entering the country following several convictions for drug trafficking, possession of cocaine and heroin, assault, intentional and unlawful destruction of property, and intentional handling of stolen goods, the ECtHR found no violation of Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention.

In May 2023, the ECtHR handed down the ruling in the case of R.N. v. HUNGARY in which it found violations of Article 4 (prohibition of slavery and forced labour) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) against a Pakistani national, who was removed from Hungary after his irregular entry.

The case concerns the removal of the applicant, a Pakistani national, unaccompanied minor, from Hungary. The applicant had crossed the border into Hungary clandestinely on 21 June 2017. Then he was apprehended by Hungarian police officers, and, together with ten other migrants, was taken to the border fence and made to walk in the direction of Serbia. The Court held that the removal had been carried out in the absence of any formal decision or examination of the applicant’s situation and that the latter had not had a realistic chance of entering the transit zone and applying for asylum there. It insisted that the applicant was an unaccompanied minor, and therefore in a situation of extreme vulnerability.