Language Switcher

Key Words Archives: Deprivation of liberty

KEBE and others, Application no. 12552/12, Judgment of 12 January 2017 & Nur Ahmed and others, Application no. 42779/12, Judgment of 18 June 2020 & Nur and others, Application no. 77647/11, Judgment of 16 July 2020 & M.S., Application no. 17189/11, Judgment of 11 June 2020 v. Ukraine

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

Continue Reading

P.N., K.K. and O.M. on behalf of S.N., Mh.K., Mu.K., S.M., K.M and J.M. v. Finland, communication No. 100/2019, 12 September 2022

In this case, the applicants on behalf of their grandchildren (all Finland nations) who were held in a camp and had no access to legal aid or to legal information that would enable them to submit a communication. The child victims were born in the Syrian Arab Republic and were being held in the Hawl camp in the north-east of the country, which was under the control of the Syrian Democratic Forces, where the applicants claimed that they were at risk of irreparable harm in the knowledge of the Finnish Government. The applicants claimed that the State party has not taken the measures necessary to repatriate the child victims to Finland and that this failure to act constitutes a violation of articles 2, 6, 19, 20, 24, 27, 28, 37, 39 and 40 of the Convention, as well as of article 7 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the involvement of children in armed conflict. The Committee found a violation of Articles 6 (1) and 37 (a) of the Convention and recommended that the State party a) takes urgent positive measures to repatriate the child victims, acting in good faith, b) supports the reintegration and resettlement of each child who has been repatriated or resettled, and c) takes additional measures, in the meantime, to mitigate the risks to the lives, survival and development of the child victims while they remain in the north-eastern Syrian Arab Republic.

Source: PDF

Continue Reading

Abdullahi Elmi and Aweys Abubakar v. Malta, Applications No. 25794/13 and 28151/13, Judgment of 22 November 2016

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

Continue Reading