On 15 October, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in the case H.T. v. Germany and Greece (no. 13337/19), concerning a Syrian national who was removed from Germany to Greece on the day of his arrival, under an administrative arrangement between the two countries, despite his having expressed his intention to apply for asylum in Germany. It also concerns the conditions, legality, and judicial control of the legality, of the applicant’s subsequent detention in Greece.
Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) and 5 § 4 (right to have the lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) of the Convention, he complained of the conditions of his detention in Greece, that his detention was arbitrary and that he did not have at his disposal an effective remedy by which he could challenge its lawfulness. Relying on Articles 3 and 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complained that he was removed from Germany without his asylum application being registered by the German authorities and without an assessment of the risk of chain refoulement from Greece to Türkiye and ultimately to his country of origin, Syria. He also complained that the German authorities did not assess the risk of him being detained in Greece in bad conditions without any individual guarantees being obtained as regards the treatment he would face there.
As regards Germany, the Court found a violation of Article 3 (investigation) of the European Convention on Human Rights, ordering the authorities to pay 8,000 euros in non-pecuniary damages. Greece was found to be in violation of ECHR articles 3 and 5 § 4 and ordered to pay 6,500 euros in damages.
On 12 November, the ECtHR ruled on a group of 4 case, concerning expulsion orders against migrants settled in Denmark, in the context of criminal proceedings
Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complained of the decisions to expel them, with re-entry bans ranging from six to 12 years. They allege in particular that the courts failed to weigh in the balance certain personal circumstances, such as strong ties with Denmark – including a wife/partner and children – and none with their country of origin, and/or insignificant or no criminal pasts. Three of the applicants also allege that the re-entry ban amounted in effect to a permanent ban since the prospect of them being readmitted to Denmark was purely theoretical.
In the cases of Al-Habeeb v. Denmark (no. 14171/23), Savuran v. Denmark (no. 3645/23), and Winther v. Denmark (no. 9588/21), the Court found no violation of Article 8.
The violation of this article was found In the case of Sharafane v. Denmark (no. 5199/23), with the Court holding that its ruling constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.
