In its ruling in the case of Alkhatib and Others v. Greece, handed down on 16 January 2024, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been: a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights under its procedural head, and a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights under its substantive head.

The case concerned a serious gunshot wound sustained by a member of the applicants’ family on 22 September 2014 near the island of Pserimos, when a vessel was intercepted transporting people illegally to Greece.

Under the procedural aspect of Article 2, the Court noted that there had been numerous shortcomings in the investigation conducted by the national authorities; this had led, in particular, to the loss of evidence, and had affected the adequacy of the investigation.

Among other things, it had been impossible to determine whether or not the use of potentially fatal force was justified in the particular circumstances of the case.

Under the substantive aspect of Article 2, the Court noted, firstly, that the respondent State had not complied with its obligation to introduce an adequate legislative framework governing the use of potentially lethal force in the area of maritime surveillance operations.

It then considered that the coastguards, who could have presumed that the boat being monitored was transporting passengers, had not exercised the necessary vigilance in minimising any risk to life. The coastguards had thus used excessive force in the context of unclear regulations on the use of firearms. The Court considered that the Government had not demonstrated that the use of force had been “absolutely necessary” within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Convention.

On 18 January, the Court found no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) in the case Dabo v. Sweden .

The case concerned legislation introduced in 2016 in Sweden requiring refugees granted asylum to prove they have sufficient income and accommodation in family-reunification requests if the application were lodged more than three months after the sponsor had been granted asylum. The applicant was granted asylum in March 2016, but his first wife and five children’s applications for family reunification were refused because he could not fulfil this “maintenance” requirement.

Finally, on 23 January, in the case O.R. v. Greece , the judges unanimously held that there was a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

The applicant – an unaccompanied minor and asylum-seeker at the relevant time – alleged that he had remained homeless for nearly six months, without access to basic essentials and without an officially designated legal guardian.

The Court found that throughout the period in question the Greek authorities had left O.R. to fend for himself in an environment that was entirely unsuitable for minors – whether in terms of security, accommodation, hygiene or access to food and care, or in terms of the measures taken to provide for him more generally – and in unacceptably precarious circumstances, given his status as an asylum-seeker and unaccompanied minor. O.R. had therefore found himself in an inhuman and degrading situation that had been in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.