On 2 July 2020, the European Court of Human Rights delivered a Chamber judgment in the case of N.H. and Others v. France (application nos. 28820/13, 75547/13 and 13114/15). The case concerned asylum-seekers who were unable to receive the support to which they were entitled under the law and had had to sleep rough for several months. The Court found a violation of Article 3 owing to the inhuman and degrading living conditions of three of the applicants, N.H. (an Afghan national), K.T. (from Russia) and A.J. (an Iranian national), who had also been left without any means of subsistence and had suffered long procedural delays.

On 30 June 2020, the Court delivered a Chamber judgment in the case of Muhammad Saqawat v. Belgium. The applicant, Hossain Muhammad Saqawat, a Bangladeshi national born in 1986, arrived at Zaventem airport in December 2017 and lodged an initial asylum request. The Aliens Office refused him entry and he was subsequently placed in detention in a transit centre near the airport. A few weeks later his asylum request was rejected. Subsequently, he submitted further asylum requests, which were also rejected. Meanwhile Mr Saqawat had been the subject of several successive detention orders, which he unsuccessfully contested. He was released in April 2018 following a judgment delivered by the Indictments Division. The Court found a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention for the periods of his detention from 20 to 27 February 2018 and from 6 to 14 May 2018 and a violation of Article 5 § 4 (proceedings on lawfulness of detention).

On 24 June 2020, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held a hearing by video conference in the case of Savran v. Denmark (application no. 57467/15). The case concerns the complaint by the applicant, Arıf Savran, a Turkish national who was born in 1985 and who moved to Denmark when he was six, that owing to his mental health his rights would be violated if he were to be returned to Turkey. In a Chamber judgment of 1 October 2019, the Court held, by four votes to three, that there would be a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention if the applicant was removed to Turkey. The Chamber found in particular that psychiatrists had recommended that the applicant receive close monitoring and follow-up in order to make his treatment effective and allow for his reintegration into society after committing a serious offence. It had doubts about the applicant receiving such care in Turkey, where moreover he had no family network and would need a regular and personal contact person to help him. Given such doubts, the Danish authorities needed to obtain sufficient and individual assurances on his care, otherwise removing him would violate Article 3. The Chamber further found that it did not need to carry out a separate examination of a complaint by the applicant under Article 8 of the Convention. On 27 January 2020 the Grand Chamber Panel accepted the Danish Government’s request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber.