Back Recent rulings on expulsion-related cases, detention conditions and launch of fact-sheets

Recent rulings on expulsion-related cases, detention conditions and launch of fact-sheets

The case of Bencheref v. Sweden (no. 9602/15), declared inadmissible by the European Court of Human Rights in a decision handed down on 11 January 2018, concerned the complaint of an Algerian national about the length of time that Sweden had held him in detention pending expulsion, lasting from September 2008 to his application to the Court in 2015. However, the Court noted that the applicant had all along told the Swedish authorities that he was Moroccan, only revealing in 2016 that he was Algerian. The expulsion order had then been carried out within a few months. The Court rejected the application as an abuse of the right of individual application. It noted in particular that it had not been informed about the applicant’s Algerian nationality until 2017, after his expulsion. He had given no explanation for saying he was Moroccan or why he had finally decided to disclose his Algerian nationality to Sweden. The only probable explanation was that he had intended to deceive the Court about a crucial part of the case.

The case of I.K. v. Switzerland (no. 21417/17), declared inadmissible by the European Court of Human Rights on 18 January 2018, concerned an allegation by a Sierra Leonean national, who claimed to be homosexual, that he would be at risk of ill-treatment if he were to be returned to Sierra Leone. Noting in particular the lack of credibility in his allegations or of conclusive documents in support of them, the Court considered that there were not substantial grounds to believe that the applicant would be exposed to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights in the event of his return to Sierra Leone.

In its Chamber judgment in J.R. and Others v. Greece (no. 22696/16) handed down on 25 January 2018, which concerned the conditions in which three Afghan nationals were held in the Vial reception centre, on the Greek island of Chios, and the circumstances of their detention, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), a violation of Article 5 § 2 (right to be informed promptly of the reasons for arrest), no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment); and no violation of Article 34 (right of individual application) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court found in particular that the applicants had been deprived of their liberty for their first month in the centre, until 21 April 2016 when it became a semi-open centre. The Court was nevertheless of the view that the one-month period of detention, whose aim had been to guarantee the possibility of removing the applicants under the EU-Turkey Declaration, was not arbitrary and could not be regarded as “unlawful” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (f). However, the applicants had not been appropriately informed about the reasons for their arrest or the remedies available in order to challenge that detention. As to the conditions of detention in the centre, the Court noted the emergency situation facing the Greek authorities after significant numbers of migrants had arrived and the ensuing material difficulties. It observed that several NGOs had visited the centre and had partly confirmed the applicants’ allegations, but found that the conditions were not severe enough for their detention to be characterised as inhuman or degrading treatment.

On 29 January the Grand Chamber panel of five judges decided to refer to the Grand Chamber the case of N.D. and N.T. v. Spain (nos. 8675/15 and 8697/15), which concerns the immediate return to Morocco of sub-Saharan migrants who attempted on 13 August 2014 to enter Spanish territory illegally by scaling the barriers which surround the Melilla enclave on the North African coast.

In January 2018, the Court launched a series of new factsheets on its case-law including on the following themes: accompanied and unaccompanied migrant minors in detention.

European Court of Human Rights
  • Diminuer la taille du texte
  • Augmenter la taille du texte
  • Imprimer la page