This decision concerns the detention of four Sri Lankan asylum seekers of Tamil origin, a woman and her three children (aged 13, 11 and 8 respectively at the time of the events), for almost four months in a closed transit centre, with a view to their deportation after the Belgian authorities refused them entry and while their return was pending. The court found a violation of Article 3 (for the three children) and Article 5 § 1 (for all applicants).
Source: official link
This group of cases concerns various deficiencies in the procedures related to different aspects of the treatment of asylum-seekers in Ukraine at different times in 2011-2020, among others various problems in detention of persons present in Ukraine in an irregular manner, in violation of Article 5 § 1 (f). The Court has noted that the procedure as regards unaccompanied migrant children and the information that there were no recent cases of detention of such children at the centres for temporary accommodation of foreigners and stateless persons who are present in Ukraine illegally, encouraged the authorities to take the steps necessary to consolidate this trend and to ensure adequate treatment of such children.
Source: click here
In this case, the Court decided that the use of handcuffs on a mother in front of her daughter is an aggravating factor.
Source: click here
This case concerns 2 unaccompanied minor migrants interned in an overcrowded reception centre for adult migrants for 4 months. This constitutes a violation of Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the ECHR.
Source: click here.
This case concerns detention for 8 months of 2 minors, aged 16 and 17, in a centre with deplorable conditions (overcrowding, lack of light and ventilation, absence of activities and tense atmosphere) while awaiting the outcome of their asylum procedure, in particular to determine their age, which constitutes a violation of Article 3 ECHR.
Source: click here
This case concerns the detention for 5 months of an Iraqi minor at a border post in Sufli in unacceptable conditions and without taking into consideration his condition as a minor. This constitutes a violation of Article 3 ECHR coupled with Article 13 ECHR and a violation of Article 5 ECHR.
Source: click here
