On 14 January 2021, in the Chamber judgment in the case of E.K. v. Greece (application no. 73700/13) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been: no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, no violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), and a violation of Article (right to a speedy decision on the lawfulness of detention). The case concerned the applicant’s conditions of detention in the Soufli and Feres border posts, the Attika Sub-Directorate for Aliens (Petrou Ralli) and the Amygdaleza Detention Centre, the lawfulness of his detention, and whether the review of the lawfulness of that detention had been effective. The Court found in particular that the applicant’s conditions of detention had not been contrary to the Convention in any of the establishments in which the applicant had been detained, with reference, in particular, to several reports by international organisations having visited them. The Court considered that the applicant’s detention had not been arbitrary and had been “lawful”. The Court noted, however that the applicant had not benefited from a sufficiently thorough assessment of the lawfulness of his detention.

On 12 January 2021, in the Chamber judgments in the cases of Munir Johana v. Denmark (application no. 56803/18) and Khan v. Denmark (no. 26957/19) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously and by six votes to one respectively, that there had been: no violations of Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned the applicants’ expulsions from Denmark being ordered following repeated convictions for various criminal offences, despite their having lived there since a young age. The Court found in particular that the domestic authorities had taken into account the applicant’s particular circumstances, in particular the specific crimes and their prior criminal records, and that their ties to Denmark had been properly examined. It considered that the sentences had been proportionate.

On 22 December 2020, in a Chamber judgment in the case of Usmanov v. Russia (application no. 43936/18) concerning a national of Tajikstan, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously, that there had been: violations of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights as concerned both the revocation of the applicant’s Russian citizenship and the decision to expel him from Russian territory. Mr Usmanov was granted Russian citizenship in 2008, but it was revoked ten years later when the authorities discovered that he had omitted the names of his brothers and sisters in his application. The decision to expel him had been taken after he refused to leave the country. Overall, the Court considered that the authorities’ decisions in the applicant’s case had been overly formalistic, failing to duly balance the interests at stake. In particular, they had not shown why the applicant’s failure to submit information about some of his siblings had been so grave that it was justified to deprive him of his Russian citizenship so many years after he had obtained it. Nor had they taken into account the fact that he had been living in Russia for a considerable period of time with a Russian national, with whom he had four children, and that during his stay he had not committed any offences. The Court also decided to continue to indicate to the Russian Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court not to expel the applicant until such time as this judgment became final or until further notice.