In October and November, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled on several migration-related cases and here is an overview of the most important ones:

Shahzad v. Hungary (no. 2) (no. 37967/18)

The applicant, Khurram Shahzad, is a Pakistani national who was born in 1986 and, according to the most recent information available, lives in Dubai (United Arab Emirates).

Mr Shahzad, an asylum-seeker, crossed into Hungary via Serbia in August 2016 by cutting the border fence. The case concerns his allegation that he was ill-treated by the Hungarian border police when being escorted back to Serbia.

Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Shahzad alleges that he was punched, kicked and beaten with batons and a metal rod during his forced removal, submitting a medical report issued a few hours later by a Serbian hospital certifying that he had two head wounds and bruises all over his body. He also alleges under Article 3 that the investigation into his criminal complaint was ineffective, in particular because the authorities failed to interview him at any point or to re-interview the police officers involved in the incident who had made contradictory statements.

Violation of Article 3 with regard to its substantive and procedural aspects,

Just satisfaction: non-pecuniary damage: €20,000; costs and expenses: €5,000

S.S. and Others v. Hungary (nos. 56417/19 and 44245/20)

The applicants are seven Yemeni nationals who live in Vienna (Austria) and three Afghan nationals who live in Hamburg (Germany). They are two families.

The case concerns the applicants’ alleged collective expulsion from Hungary to Serbia without an individualised assessment of their situation. They were stopped in Budapest International Airport in April 2019 arriving from Istanbul in the case of the Yemeni applicants (no. 56417/19), and December 2019 arriving from Dubai (United Arab Emirates) in the case of the Afghan applicants (no. 44245/20). They attempted to enter Hungary using falsified travel documents. After they had requested asylum, the Hungarian authorities removed them to Serbia.

Relying on Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens) and Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) of the European Convention, the applicants complain that they were part of a collective expulsion, and that they were expelled to Serbia, which did not have an adequate asylum procedure, without an assessment of their risk of ill-treatment there.

Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4

Violation of Article 3 (ill-treatment)

Just satisfaction: Non-pecuniary damage: €10,000 to the first to seventh applicants jointly and €7,000 to the eighth to tenth applicants jointly; Costs and expenses: €3,000 to the applicants jointly

A.D. v. Malta (no. 12427/22)

The applicant, A.D., is an Ivoirian national, who was allegedly born in 2004 and was at the time of the submission of the application detained in Safi detention centre (Malta).

A.D. arrived in Malta irregularly on 24 November 2021. The case concerns his being held in different detention centres over the next few months despite his being allegedly a minor and suffering from health problems.

Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, the applicant alleges that his conditions of detention were either inadequate and unlawful or inadequate and arbitrary, and that he had no access to an effective remedy.

Violation of Article 3

Violation of Article 5 § 1 in relation to the period between 10 December 2021 until 10 February 2022

Violation of Article 5 § 1 in relation to the period between 10 February 2022 until July 2022

Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3

Just satisfaction: non-pecuniary damage: €25,000; costs and expenses: €3,000

Memedova and Others v. North Macedonia (nos. 42429/16, 8934/18, and 9886/18)

The applicants are five Macedonians/citizens of the Republic of North Macedonia who were born in 1957, 1985, 1972, 1976 and 1979. The first two applicants live respectively in Vinica and Skopje, while the others live in Kriva Palanka (all in North Macedonia).

The case concerns border incidents in 2014 when the applicants, all of Roma ethnicity, were not allowed to leave the country. The incidents took place amid measures taken by the Ministry of the Interior to strengthen border controls of citizens leaving North Macedonia who were potential asylum seekers in the European Union.

Relying in particular on Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement), taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), the applicants complain that their right to leave the country was breached and that they were singled out by the border police officers owing to their Roma ethnicity.

Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 in respect of the first, second, third and fourth applicants

Violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 in respect of the first, second, third and fourth applicants

Just satisfaction: pecuniary damage:  €150 to the first applicant and €180 to the second applicant; non-pecuniary damage: €3,000 to the first applicant, €4,100 to the second applicant and €5,900 to the third and fourth applicants jointly; costs and expenses: €2,350 to the second applicant and €1,435 to the third and fourth applicants jointly