Retour Recent migration-related court judgments and decisions

Recent migration-related court judgments and decisions

On 18 November 2021, the European Court of Human Rights held down a Chamber judgement in the case of M.H. and Others v. Croatia (applications nos. 15670/18 and 43115/18). The case concerned the death of a six-year-old Afghan child, MAD.H., who was hit by a train after allegedly having been denied the opportunity to seek asylum by the Croatian authorities and ordered to return to Serbia via the tracks. It also concerned, in particular, the applicants’ detention while seeking international protection. The Court found in particular that the investigation into the death had been ineffective, that the applicant children’s detention had amounted to ill-treatment, and that the decisions around the applicants’ detention had not been dealt with diligently. It also held that some of the applicants had suffered a collective expulsion from Croatia, and that the State had hindered the effective exercise of the applicants’ right of individual application by restricting access to their lawyer among other things. The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 2 (right to life), a violation of Article 3 (prohibition on inhuman and degrading treatment), a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to security and liberty) in respect of all the applicants, a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention (prohibition of collective expulsions of aliens) and a violation of Article 34 (right of individual petition).

On 25 November 2021, the European Court of Human Rights declared the application inadmissible in the case of Melouli v. France (application no. 42011/19), on the grounds that a complaint under Article 8 of the Convention, alleging a breach of the right to respect for private and family life, was manifestly ill-founded. The case concerned a refusal to grant the applicant a permit to reside in France, together with an order to leave the country. Having regard to the fair balance struck by the domestic courts between the various interests at stake and given the margin of appreciation afforded to the national authorities in such matters, the Court found that the prefectoral order at issue, denying the applicant leave to remain and obliging him to leave France, had not disproportionately affected his right to respect for his private and family life as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. The decision is final.

On 25 November 2021, the European Court of Human Rights declared the application inadmissible in the case of Ngumbu Kikoso v. France (application no. 21643/19), rejecting as manifestly ill-founded his complaint under Article 8, which protects private and family life. The case concerned an order for the applicant’s deportation and exclusion from France, imposed in addition to the applicant’s six-month prison sentence for possession and use of falsified administrative documents. The Court found that the domestic courts had been entitled legitimately to consider, on account of the applicant’s conduct and the seriousness and repetition of the offences in question, that a measure banning him from France for ten years was necessary for the prevention of disorder or crime. The measure had been proportionate to the aims pursued and was not an excessive interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life in spite of the length of time he had lived in France. The decision is final.

On 30 November 2021, the European Court of Human Rights held down a chamber judgement in the case of Avci v. Denmark (no. 40240/19). The applicant, Cihan Avci, is a Turkish national who was born in 1993 and lives in Turkey. The case concerns a High Court order to expel the applicant from Denmark following his conviction and custodial sentence for, among other things, serious drugs offences. Mr Avci was ultimately expelled on 24 January 2020. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention, the applicant complains of the decision to expel him from Denmark. The Court held that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

 

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
  • Diminuer la taille du texte
  • Augmenter la taille du texte
  • Imprimer la page