On 1 October 2019, the European Court of Human Rights handed down a Chamber judgment in the case of Savran v. Denmark (application no. 57467/15) concerning the applicant’s complaint that owing to his mental health his rights would be violated if he were to be returned to Turkey. The Court held, by four votes to three, that there would be a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights 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.

On 3 October 2019, in a Chamber judgment handed down in the case of Kaak and Others v. Greece (application no. 34215/16), concerning the conditions of detention of Syrian, Afghan and Palestinian nationals in the “hotspots” of Vial and Souda (Greece), and the lawfulness of their detention in those camps, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), no violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), and a violation of Article 5 § 4 (right to a speedy decision on the lawfulness of detention) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Chamber considered in particular that the authorities had done all that could reasonably be expected of them in the Vial camp to meet the obligation to provide care and protection to unaccompanied minors. The other applicants had been transferred immediately – or within ten days – from the Vial camp to the Souda camp. The Court also held that the conditions of detention in the Souda camp did not amount to inhuman or degrading treatment. The Chamber further reiterated its previous finding that a period of one month’s detention in the Vial camp should not be considered excessive, given the time needed to comply with the relevant administrative formalities. In addition, the length of the applicants’ detention once they had expressed their wish to apply for asylum had been relatively short. Lastly, in contrast, the applicants, who did not have legal assistance, had not been able to understand the content of the information brochure; in particular, they were unable to understand the material relating to the various appeal possibilities available under domestic law.