On 17 Mai 2022, in a chamber judgment, the European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 5 § 1 in the case of Ali Reza v. Bulgaria. The applicant, Hamid Ali Reza, is an Iraqi national who was born in 1973. He arrived in Bulgaria in 2000 and was granted subsidiary protection (“humanitarian status”) on account of the war situation in Iraq. He was issued with a residence permit in 2003. The case concerns an expulsion order issued against Mr Ali Reza in 2015 on the grounds of national security, and whether the remedies available to him under domestic law were effective. It also concerns the applicant’s administrative detention with a view to his expulsion (between June 2015 and January 2016) and the time taken to examine his appeal against that detention. Mr Ali Reza, who currently lives in Sofia, married his Bulgarian partner in December 2017. Since January 2016, he has been subject to administrative supervision and must report to a police station once a week. Before the European Court, he relies on Articles 3 (prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.

Violation of Article 5 § 1. Just satisfaction: non-pecuniary damage: EUR 3,500. No request made in respect of cost and expenses

On 26 April 2022, the European Court of Human Rights (First Section), published a decision in the case of A.j v. Greece. The applicant is a stateless Palestinian and unaccompanied minor who was granted asylum in Greece in 2016. The application concerns the revocation of his refugee status and the decision to return him to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, as well as the reception conditions he faced in Greece, initially as a child of a single-parent family and later as an unaccompanied minor, namely a lack of psychosocial support and separation from his siblings, who were hosted at different accommodation facilities. The applicant also complained that the procedure which had led to the revocation of his refugee status, combined with the failure to appoint a guardian for him, had been deficient. The Court decided to strike the application out of its list of cases in respect of the applicant’s complaint under Article 3, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13, concerning his return to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and to discontinue the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court; Holds that there is no need to examine separately the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention concerning the guardianship and the procedure followed in respect of the applicant’s representation and revocation of his refugee status either alone or taken in conjunction with Article 13; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

On 26 April 2022, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in a Chamber judgment that “expelling a Pakistani national who had converted to Christianity in Switzerland was liable to infringe his Convention rights”. If the decision to expel the applicant to Pakistan were to be executed there would be a violation of Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, in the absence of an assessment of the risk to which the applicant was exposed on account of the overall situation of Christian converts in Pakistan and of his own personal situation. The case of M.A.M. v. Switzerland concerned the applicant’s possible expulsion to Pakistan. M.A.M. is a Pakistani national who had converted from Islam to Christianity while in Switzerland, where he had arrived in 2015 and where his asylum request had been rejected. The Court ruled that the assessment by the Swiss authorities of the risk facing the applicant on account of his conversion to Christianity if he were expelled to Pakistan had been insufficient to uphold the rejection of his asylum request, also given that he had not been represented by a lawyer at any stage in the national proceedings. It further found that the applicant had demonstrated that his asylum request, which had been based on his religious conversion, should have been examined in greater detail by the national authorities, which should, in particular, have taken into consideration any possible developments in the overall situation of Christian converts in Pakistan and the specific circumstances of the applicant’s case. The Court also decided, pursuant to Rule 39 of its Rules of Court (interim measures), that it was desirable in the interests of the proper conduct of the proceedings, that the applicant should not be expelled until the judgment had become final or until further notice.

On 4 April 2022, the European Court of Human Rights handed down a chamber judgment in the case of A.A. and Others v. North Macedonia. The applicants are five Syrian nationals, two Iraqi nationals, and one Afghan national. The case concerns the applicants’ allegation of a pushback to Greece by the police and army after they illegally crossed into the territory of North Macedonia, against the background of the migrant crisis in 2016. They were part of two large groups of refugees who had left a camp in the border town of Idomeni, Greece, on 14 March 2016 to join what became known as “the March of Hope”, wading across a river to enter the territory of North Macedonia. Relying on Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (prohibition of collective expulsion) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention, the applicants complain of their summary deportation, without an individual assessment of their cases or opportunity to oppose it. The Court found No violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 and No violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 4 of Protocol No. 4