Poland: ICJ and others intervene to support the binding effect of interim measures

Poland: ICJ and others intervene to support the binding effect of interim measures

The ICJ, together with other NGOs, intervened before the European Court of Human Rights in MA v Poland, concerning interim measures to protect applicants for asylum at the Polish-Belarus border.

The case concerned a family of asylum seekers who sought to apply for international protection in Poland, at a border crossing with Belarus, but were repeatedly turned away by border guards. The European Court granted interim measures indicating that the applicants should not be returned from Poland to Belarus, and that their asylum application should be examined by the Polish authorities. These interim measures were not complied with.

In their third party intervention in the case, the ICJ, ECRE, AIRE Centre and the Dutch Council for Refugees emphasised the binding nature of the obligation to comply with interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights, supported by the jurisprudence of the Court and by comparative standards of other international human rights mechanisms.

They further submitted that, where interim measures relate to children, irrespective of whether the children are applicants in the case, the State must abide by the measure indicated with special diligence and take the appropriate protective measures which the age, level of maturity, environment and experiences of the children require.

Poland-MA-ECtHR-amicus-ICJ&others-final-eng-2017 (download the intervention)

Greece: ICJ and others intervene in case challenging returns under EU-Turkey deal

Greece: ICJ and others intervene in case challenging returns under EU-Turkey deal

The ICJ and other human rights organisations intervened before the European Court of Human Rights in a case challenging the returns of migrants and refugees from Greece under the EU-Turkey deal.

The ICJ, the AIRE Centre, the European Council on Refugees and Exiles and the Dutch Council for Refugees have submitted a third party intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of J.B. v. Greece. The case concerns the decision of Greek authorities to return a Syrian refugee to Turkey under the legal assumption that Turkey is a safe third country for refugees, that has been introduced following the EU-Turkey deal reached in reaction to the “refugee crisis”.

The interveners challenge the implementation of the rule of safe third country in these situations with regard to Greece’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Specifically, the intervention focuses on:

  • The principle of non-refoulement under the ECHR;
  • The safe third country concept in international refugee law and EU law;
  • The respect of the right to an effective remedy in cases of returns to Turkey under the safe third country rule.

Greece-JB_v_Greece-ECtHR-amicus-ICJ&others-final-eng-2017 (download the intervention)

ICJ intervenes in case of migrant’s detention and access to justice in Italy

ICJ intervenes in case of migrant’s detention and access to justice in Italy

The ICJ submitted today a third party intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Richmond Yaw and others v. Italy regarding the detention of four migrants in Italian Centres for Identification and Expulsion.

The case raises issues related to the lawfulness of their detention in immigration centres, and the compliance of the mechanisms of judicial review and compensation for unlawful detention with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Taky Berko Richmond Yaw, Yaw Ansu Matthew, Darke Isaac Kwadwo, and Dominic Twumasi, nationals of Guinea, had been detained in the Centre for Identification and Expulsion of Ponte Galeria (Rome).

In these submissions, the ICJ presented the Court with a summary of its findings regarding the law and practice of detention of migrants and the related judicial guarantees in Italy, in its 2014 report, “Undocumented” Justice for Migrants in Italy.

Furthermore, the ICJ presented an analysis of the principles that apply in regard to arbitrary detention of persons detained for the purposes of immigration control under article 5.1.f. ECHR, in particular:

  • The principle of legality, including the fact that the basis, procedures and conditions for detention must be provided by law, and the principle that detention must be carried out in good faith; and the due process guarantees related to these principles;
  • The requirement that detention be undertaken only pursuant to the permitted purposes of article 5.1.f ECHR, and the need for strict construction of this requirement, and ongoing scrutiny of compliance with it, in particular in the context of long periods of detention;
  • The requirements of access to an effective judicial mechanism to secure the right to habeas corpus and review of the legality, necessity and proportionality of the detention of migrants, under article 5.4. ECHR;
  • The requirements of an effective remedy and reparation mechanism for unlawful deprivation of liberty under article 5.5 ECHR.

ECtHR-AmicusBrief-Yaw&others v Italy-Advocacy-Legal Submission-2015-ENG (download the third party intervention)

ICJ and ILGA-Europe joint submissions in Milica Đorđević and others v. Serbia

ICJ and ILGA-Europe joint submissions in Milica Đorđević and others v. Serbia

On 17 November 2014, the ICJ and ILGA-Europe filed their joint written submissions with the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Milica Đorđević and others v. Serbia (Application Nos. 5591/10, 17802/12, 23138/13 and 25474/14).  

The case concerns the authorities’ decision in 2009 to relocate the applicants’ “Pride Parade” to promote the equality and visibility of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people away from central Belgrade, Serbia, and the authorities’ repeated banning of Pride Parades in central Belgrade in 2011, 2012 and 2013.

The ICJ and the European Region of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA-Europe)’s submissions to the Court focus on:

  • the essential role of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly in a democratic society, and the scope of discretion afforded to States in determining measures required to prevent disorder at an assembly where counter-demonstrators threaten violence against groups most at risk; and
  • the nature and scope of the State’s obligation in relation to the right to freedom of peaceful assembly under the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, focusing in particular on States’ duty to adopt legislative and administrative measures in order to fulfil their legal obligations.

 SERBIA-ECHR amicus Dordevic-Advocacy-Legal Submission-2014-ENG (full text in PDF)

Translate »