Strasbourg Observers

View posts from: Non-refoulement

  • Isabel Kienzle and Jonathan Kießling

Evidently unlawful, yet difficult to evidence: M.A. and Z.R. v. Cyprus advances Strasbourg’s case law on pushbacks

October 22, 2024

By Isabel Kienzle and Jonathan Kießling For the first time, in M.A. and Z.R. v. Cyprus, the ECtHR has decided on a pushback case against Cyprus, addressing the island state’s practice to intercept and return migrants arriving from Lebanon without an individual assessment of their protection needs. As the parties provided conflicting accounts of the […]

  • Dr Juan Ruiz Ramos

W.A. and Others v. Italy: Is a cry for help not enough to trigger non-refoulement?

March 05, 2024

By Dr Juan Ruiz Ramos Introduction W.A. and Others v. Italy concerns the procedures that States ought to follow to avoid violating the principle of non-refoulement under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Convention). While procedural matters often do not create as much hype among academics as questions of substance—such as the […]

  • William Julié and Juliette Fauvarque

Bivolaru and Moldovan v. France: A New Challenge for Mutual Trust in the European Union?

June 22, 2021

By William Julié, founding partner of William Julié Law Office and international criminal law officer at the International Bar Association, and Juliette Fauvarque, trainee lawyer at William Julié Law Office. In the recent Bivolaru and Moldovan v. France case, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) handed a landmark judgment in relation to the execution […]

  • Guest Blogger

B. and C. v Switzerland: between concealment of sexual orientation and risk assessment in Article 3 cases

January 15, 2021

Blog post by Riccardo Viviani, LL.M., and Denise Venturi, Ph.D. Candidate in Law, KU Leuven, Research Unit Public Law* On 17 November 2020, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered its judgment in B. and C. v Switzerland. The case concerned the risk of deportation and ill-treatment upon return to the Gambia of a […]

  • Guest Blogger

M.A. v. Belgium: the (in)voluntary return of a Sudanese migrant and the dangers of informal migration cooperation with third countries

December 03, 2020

By Eleonora Frasca, PhD Researcher in EU Migration Law at UCLouvain, Member of EDEM (Equipe droit européen et migrations) On 27 October 2020, the Court delivered its ruling in the case of M.A. v. Belgium (press release available in English). The case concerns the deportation of a Sudanese national, who was apprehended without documents by […]

  • Guest Blogger

Reaching the dead-end: M.N. and others and the question of humanitarian visas

May 07, 2020

By Moritz Baumgärtel M.N. and others v. Belgium confronted the ECtHR with the question whether Article 3 of the ECHR places an obligation on State Parties to provide short-term humanitarian visas in their foreign embassies and consulates to potential asylum seekers. The Court, assembled in its Grand Chamber, found the case to be outside the […]

  • Guest Blogger

Basra v. Belgium: a structural problem struck from the list

November 05, 2018

By Marjan Claes (NANSEN), Charlotte Coenen (NANSEN), Ellen Desmet (UGent), Sylvie Saroléa (UCL) On 13 September 2018, the European Court of Human Rights struck the application of Basra v. Belgium out of its list. Mr. Basra argued not having benefited from an effective remedy in the sense of article 13 ECHR, with respect to his […]

  • Strasbourg Observers

One-way ticket to Sudan: standard-setting, yet disconnection between reasoning and outcome in N.A. v. Switzerland?

June 26, 2017

By Ellen Desmet, assistant professor of migration law at Ghent University On 30 May 2017, the European Court of Human Rights decided two cases regarding the expulsion of rejected asylum seekers by Switzerland to Sudan. In A.I. v. Switzerland, the Court held unanimously that there would be a violation of Articles 2 and 3 ECHR […]

  • Guest Blogger

X and X v. Belgium: a missed opportunity for the CJEU to rule on the state’s obligations to issue humanitarian visa for those in need of protection

April 14, 2017

By Helena De Vylder, lawyer at the Flemish Integration Agency (Agentschap voor Integratie en Inburgering) On 7 March 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) gave a preliminary ruling in the case PPU X and X v. Belgium. Against the recommendations of the Advocate General, the CJEU left the responsibility for granting […]

  • Guest Blogger

Hirsi (part II): Another side to the judgment

March 02, 2012

This is the second post written by Marie-Bénédicte Dembour* on the case Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy. As I said yesterday, Hirsi is a fantastic judgment. It is ground-breaking not only for declaring interception-at-sea as currently practiced illegal on a number of grounds but also for potentially lightening the burden of proof which falls […]

  • Guest Blogger

Interception-at-sea: Illegal as currently practiced – Hirsi and Others v. Italy

March 01, 2012

This post is written by Marie-Bénédicte Dembour. She is Professor of Law and Anthropology at the University of Sussex. She is the author of Who Believes in Human Rights? Reflections on the European Convention and currently preparing a monograph provisionally entitled Migrant First, Human When? Testing Human Rights in the European and Inter-American Courts. Europe […]

  • Saïla Ouald Chaib

The Strasbourg Court and the Arab Spring

December 12, 2011

International politics are never far away in cases dealing with the extradition of individuals to third countries. In the case of Al Hanchi v. Bosnia and Herzegovina the European Court of Human Rights was confronted with an extradition of a so-called foreign mujahedin to Tunisia. Until now, the Court had a clear stance. The deportation […]