The Court has ruled on two cases, G.R.J. v. Greece and A.R.E. v. Greece, concerning allegations that international protection seekers had been “pushed back” from Greece to Türkiye.
The Court declared the application in the case G.R.J. v. Greece inadmissible. It found that there were strong indications to suggest that there had existed, at the time of the events alleged, a systematic practice of “pushbacks” from the Greek islands to Türkiye. However, it took the view that the applicant, whose statements and allegations had appeared contradictory and inconsistent at times, had failed to provide prima facie evidence of his presence in Greece and of his “pushback” to Türkiye from the island of Samos on the dates alleged. Consequently, he could not claim victim status for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention.
In the case A.R.E. v. Greece the Court found several violations of the Convention. It considered that there were strong indications to suggest that there had existed, at the time of the events alleged, a systematic practice of “pushbacks” of third-country nationals by the Greek authorities, from the Evros region to Türkiye. In particular, it noted that the applicant had been sent back to her home country, Türkiye, – from which she had fled – without a prior examination of the risks she faced on her return. The Court did not, however, find a violation of the right to life or the prohibition of torture, taking the view that the applicant had not produced any prima facie evidence to substantiate her allegations.
In the case A.C. v. France, the Court held that the French authorites had violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights relating to the respect for the private life by providing no protection to an unaccompanied Guinean migrant by contesting his minor status.
The judges concluded that the presumption of minority in his respect had been rebutted in such specific conditions as to deprive him of adequate procedural safeguards. In consequence, despite the existence of a domestic legal framework which in principle afforded the requisite minimum procedural safeguards, the relevant authorities had not in the present case acted with reasonable diligence and had not complied with their positive obligation to ensure the applicant’s right to respect for his private life.
