On 10 September 2020, in a Chamber judgment delivered at the European Court of Human Rights in the case of B.G and Others v. France, the Court held that there had been no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the living conditions in a temporary asylum-seekers' camp in Metz. The applicants, a family with 3 children, aged 2, 9 and 11, lived in a tent camp in a carpark for a bit over 3 months. The question was whether they had received the material and financial support provided for by domestic law. While indirect evidence of overcrowding and critical sanitary conditions in the camp at the time of their stay was available from various sources, the Court noted that there was no specific material in the file allowing it to make a concrete assessment of the applicants’ living conditions. The Court further observed that the French authorities had taken measures which had brought about a rapid improvement in their material living conditions, in particular ensuring medical care and schooling for the children. This and the fact that basic needs such as housing, food vouchers and washing, had all been met in such a short time, lead to the conclusion of no violation.

On 23 July 2020, the European Court of Human Rights delivered a Chamber judgment in the case of M. K. and Others v. Poland. The case concerned the repeated refusal of Polish border guards on the border with Belarus to admit the applicants, who had come from Chechnya and had asked for international protection. The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens) to the Convention, and a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 3 and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4. It also held, unanimously, that Poland had failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 (right to individual petition) of the Convention. The Court found in particular that the applicants had repeatedly arrived at the Terespol border crossing between Poland and Belarus and had made it clear, despite the Polish authorities’ statements to the contrary, that they wished to seek international protection. Instead, the border guards had returned them consistently to Belarus, without a proper review of their applications. Furthermore, the Government had ignored interim measures issued by the European Court to prevent the removal of the applicants, who had argued that they were at a real risk of chain-refoulement and treatment contrary to the Convention. The Court concluded on a consistent practice by the Polish State of returning people to Belarus in such circumstances, a policy which amounted to collective expulsion. Given the authorities’ refusal to implement the Court’s interim measures, the Polish State had also failed to live up to its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention.