On 8 September 2021, the European Court of Human Rights decided to indicate an interim measure in the case of Sadeed and Others v. Lithuania (application no. 44205/21) concerning five Afghan nationals who have been attempting to enter Lithuania from Belarus and now assert that they are in hiding in Lithuania. The measure was applied until 29 September 2021 inclusive.

On 14 September 2021, the European Court of Human Rights handed down a Chamber judgement in the case of M.D. and Others v. Russia (no. 71321/17 and nine other applications) concerning 11 Syrian nationals who had entered the Russian Federation between 2011 and 2014 and overstayed their visas. The case concerns their arrest and detention, the immigration charges brought against them individually, and subsequent orders for their expulsion. The Court found that there had been a violation of Articles 2 and 3 (in the event of the expulsion of eight of the applicants to Syria), a violation of Article 5 § 1 (in respect of two of the applicants), no violation of Article 5 § 1 (in respect of three of the applicants), a violation of Article 5 § 4 (in respect of two of the applicants). The Court also decided to indicate an interim measure (Rule 39 of the Rules of Court) which will remain in force until the present judgment becomes final or until further notice as regard eight of the applicants.

On 14 September 2021, the European Court of Human Rights handed down a Chamber judgement in the case of Abdi c. Denmark (no 41643/19). The case concerns the Danish authorities’ decision in 2018 to expel the applicant, with a permanent ban on his re-entry to the country, following his conviction for possession of a firearm. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention, the applicant submits that, in their decisions, the Danish courts failed to weigh in the balance that he did not have a significant criminal past, that he had never been issued with a warning that he might be expelled, and that he had strong ties to Denmark where he has lived with his family since he was four years old. The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

On 15 September 2021, the European Court of Human Rights decided to lift interim measures in the case Ahmed and Others v. Latvia (application no. 42165/21), which concerned recent events at the border of Latvia with Belarus. The applicants in the case – 41 Kurdish-ethnic Iraqi nationals – were attempting to enter Latvia, allegedly with a view to seeking international protection. The Court previously indicated interim measures in their case on 25 August 2021, requesting that the Latvian authorities provide the applicants with food, water, clothing, adequate medical care and, if possible, temporary shelter.

On 28 September 2021, the European Court of Human Rights gave notice to the Government of Poland of the application in R.A. and Others v. Poland (application no. 42120/21) and asked them to submit their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. The case concerns 32 Afghan nationals who have been confined for approximately seven weeks in a makeshift camp on the border between Belarus and Poland near the Polish village of Usnarz Górny. The Court has also decided to extend the interim measure previously indicated in this case and to apply two new interim measures under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court.

On 29 September 2021, the European Court of Human Rights held a Grand Chamber hearing in the case of H.F. and M.F. v. France and J.D. and A.D. v. France (application nos. 24384/19 and 44234/20). The case concerns unsuccessful requests by the applicants for the repatriation by the French authorities of their respective daughters and grandchildren, who are being held in the al-Hol camp in north-eastern Syria run by the Syrian Democratic Forces.

On September 30, in its decision in the case of Aarrass v. Belgium (application no. 16371/18) the European Court of Human Rights has unanimously declared the application inadmissible. The case concerned a Belgian and Moroccan national who alleged that the Belgian State had failed to provide consular protection in order to defend him from the serious breaches of his physical and psychological integrity to which he had been subjected while imprisoned in Morocco. He relied on Articles 1 (obligation to respect human rights) and 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court noted that the situation did not arise from inertia on the part of the Belgian consular officials working in Morocco, but from the systematic refusal on the part of Moroccan authorities, who had exercised exclusive control over the applicant’s person.