On 8 October 2019, the European Court of Human Rights handed down a Chamber judgment in the case of Szurovecz v. Hungary (application no. 15428/16), concerning media access to reception facilities for asylum-seekers, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The applicant in the case, a journalist for an Internet news portal, complained about the authorities’ refusal of his request to carry out interviews and take photographs at the Debrecen Reception Centre, thus preventing him from reporting on the living conditions there. The Court stressed that research work was an essential part of press freedom and had to be protected. It was not convinced that restricting the applicant’s ability to carry out such research work, which had prevented him from reporting first-hand on a matter of considerable public interest, namely the refugee crisis in Hungary, had been sufficiently justified. In particular, the authorities had only given summary reasons, namely possible problems for the safety and private lives of asylum-seekers, for their refusal, without any real weighing up of the interests at stake.

On 10 October 2019, the European Court of Human Rights handed down a Chamber judgment in the case of M.D. v. France (application no. 50376/13), concerning a migrant who identified himself as an unaccompanied minor and who complained of being left in a precarious material situation by the French authorities. The Court held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights. It noted, in particular, that, once the French courts had ruled that the applicant was a minor, the authorities had provided him with all the necessary assistance, appointing a legal representative, providing him with accommodation and enrolling him in a vocational school. Although the period of around 14 months after the Court of Appeal had found him to be an adult had been difficult, it had not amounted in the Court’s view to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. The applicant had ultimately been placed in the care of the council for the département until he had reached majority on 15 October 2014. Since 14 May 2018 he has been working in a company on a permanent contract.

On 10 October 2019, in another Chamber judgment in the case of O.D. v. Bulgaria (application no. 34016/18), concerning an order made by the Bulgarian authorities for the expulsion to Syria of a former Syrian serviceman on the grounds that he posed a threat to national security, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that the applicant’s removal to Syria would amount to a violation of Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and that there had been a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention read in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3. The Court found, in particular, that in view of the overall situation in Syria and the individual risk faced by the applicant it could not be established that he could safely return to Syria. The Court also found that the applicant had not had access to an effective remedy, noting that his request for a stay of execution of the expulsion order had been rejected on the grounds that he posed a threat to national security, and that the proceedings relating to the application for refugee status or humanitarian status had not been aimed at reviewing the lawfulness of the expulsion order or its effects in relation to the complaints concerning the right to life and the right not to be subjected to ill-treatment.

On 17 October 2019, in a Chamber judgment in the case of G.B. and Others v. Turkey (application no. 4633/15), the European Court of Human Rights found multiple rights violations of a mother and her three young children held in immigration detention pending their deportation from Turkey. They had been released after nearly four months following a series of challenges about the lawfulness of their detention before the domestic courts. The Court held, unanimously, that there had been two violations of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the applicants’ conditions of detention pending deportation at two different removal centres, a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 because of the lack of effective remedies for the applicants to complain about the conditions of detention at one of the removal centres, and violations of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 (right to liberty and security / right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court). The Court found, in particular, that the Government had failed to disprove the applicants’ allegations that they had been detained in overcrowded dormitories, had rarely been allowed to go outside for fresh air, had constantly been exposed to cigarette smoke from other detainees and had not been given suitable food for children. Such conditions were manifestly adverse even for adults, and had therefore been all the more so for the three applicants who were vulnerable children. It also held that even though a new law had come into force in 2014 which had completely overhauled the legal framework on migration and asylum in Turkey, it had had been wholly ineffective in the applicants’ case for them to complain about either the conditions or lawfulness of their detention.

On 5 November 2019, the European Court of Human handed down a Chamber judgment in the case of A.A. v. Switzerland (application no. 32218/17), concerning the removal from Switzerland to Afghanistan of an Afghan national of Hazara ethnicity who was a Muslim convert to Christianity. The Court held, unanimously, that there would be a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights in the event of the applicant’s return to Afghanistan. It noted, in particular, that according to many international documents on the situation in Afghanistan, Afghans who had become Christians or who were suspected of conversion would be exposed to a risk of persecution by various groups. It could take the form of State persecution and result in the death penalty. The Court noted that, while the authenticity of the applicant’s conversion in Switzerland had been accepted by the Federal Administrative Court, it had not carried out a sufficient assessment of the risks that could be personally faced by the applicant if he were returned to Afghanistan. The Court found in particular that the file did not contain any evidence that the applicant had been questioned about the everyday practice of his Christian faith since his baptism in Switzerland and how he could, if returned, continue to practise it in Afghanistan, in particular in Kabul, where he had never lived and where he said that he would be unable to rebuild his future life.