Communication concerning European Union (EU) Member States’ obligations regarding asylum seekers; living conditions and detention conditions as inhuman or degrading treatment; obligation of non-refoulment; asylum seekers as a vulnerable group.
The case is widely cited and set important standards regarding many aspects of the treatment of asylum seekers and the protection of their human rights both in and outside detention. In practice however, in a 2015 report the European Council on Refugees and Exiles noted the continued overcrowding of reception places in Greece, destitution and homelessness of applicants and high risk of racist violence. More broadly, this case should also be considered in conjunction with subsequent decisions of the Court with respect to determining state responsibility for asylum applications, most notably: Tarakhel v Switzerland (App. no. 29217/12, Grand Chamber judgment of 4 November 2014) and A.M.E. v The Netherlands (App. no. 51428/10, inadmissibility decision of 13 January 2015). Collectively, these cases provide guidance regarding the Court’s approach to assessing: (1) structural deficiencies of asylum procedures; and (2) the circumstances in which an applicant, personally, will face a concrete risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3, including in regard to detention conditions and the applicant’s vulnerability.
This was the first time that the Court held a Member State’s failure to satisfy basic socio-economic needs constituted a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR. The ruling also clearly established the obligation of Member States to ensure compliance with EU asylum law and standards before returning asylum seekers to other member States, and it confirmed that the Dublin Regulations’ presumption that participating states respect their human rights obligations under the ECHR may be rebutted. States would be held accountable for returning asylum-seekers to face conditions that result (or could result) in violation of Article 3. Member States must also ensure that asylum seekers claims are thoroughly examined and proper judicial review processes and remedies are available.
Centre for Advice on Individual Rights in Europe (AIRE Centre); Amnesty International; Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights; United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; Greek Helsinki Monitor; The governments of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom