REPORTS
Case H.A. and Others v. Greece – Greece condemned for violating Articles 3 and 13 of the ECHR
Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) establishes an absolute and unequivocal prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. According to the ECHR, States have a positive obligation to take steps to ensure the protection of the right not to be subjected to such treatment.
In the case of applicants for international protection, the ECtHR case law refers to a “widely accepted need” for special protection against treatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR, reflected in the practice of the UNHCR, the EU Reception Conditions Directive and the Geneva Convention. In particular, issues of inhuman and degrading treatment arise when States fail to ensure adequate living conditions for new arrivals. In assessing the adequacy of conditions, the ECtHR takes into account the provision of food and shelter and the sanitary conditions provided by a State to persons who have lodged or intend to lodge an asylum application (see more on these issues in 1, 2,).
It is worth noting additionally that:
α) The provisions of Directive 2013/33/EU on reception requirements for applicants for international protection, which have been transposed into national law, stipulate that EU Member States must ensure a basic standard of living and healthcare that protects the physical and mental health of newly arrived applicants who lack sufficient resources. In particular, Article 18 stipulates that accommodation may also be provided in shelters which must ensure an adequate standard of living.
b) The Commissioner for Human Rights visited reception centres in the country in 2018. The resulting report states that conditions in reception centres, especially on the Aegean islands, fall short of international standards. The Reception and Identification Centre of Moria was found to be overcrowded, with poor sanitary conditions, calling into question the respect of the rights of migrants and asylum seekers. The Commissioner noted that asylum seekers were accommodated in containers or large tents of up to 125 persons in squalid conditions with hardly any private space and at the mercy of weather conditions (see more in 1, 2).
On 13 June 2023 the decision (see 1, 2) in the case H.A. v. Greece (application nos. 4892/18 and 4920/18) was delivered.
This case merged two applications concerning the living conditions of 67 applicants at the Reception and Identification Centre for migrants in Moria on the island of Lesvos and the placement of some of them in a “cage” whilst awaiting their registration in 2017 and 2018. The ECtHR decided to strike the cases of applicant 1 to 4, 9 to 13 and 31 to 50 in application No 4892/18 and applicants 1 to 7, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 15 to 17 in application No 4920/18 from the register, as it considered that the applicants’ failure to maintain contact with their lawyer showed that the applicants had lost interest in the proceedings and did not intend to pursue the action within the meaning of Article 37(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the ECHR.
The ECtHR examined the merits of the case as regards applicants 5 to 8 and 14 to 29 in the first application and applicants 8, 11 and 14 in the second application.
It is noted that the ECtHR referred to the inconsistency of the parties’ versions as to the length of stay on the island and placement of the migrants in a “cage” upon arrival. It considered it appropriate to examine the conditions of the applicants’ stay in Moria “in their entirety”.
Taking into account what was stated by the applicants (see more in paragraphs 8-12) as well as the reports from international organisations (see more in paragraphs 15-22 and 43-44) concerning the conditions prevailing in Moria at the time, it found that the applicants’ living conditions were inhuman and degrading, especially in view of the overcrowding and the severe shortage of basic necessities, and that there had therefore been a violation of Article 3 ECHR.
Furthermore, noting that the applicants had no effective remedy available to them to protest these conditions, the ECtHR held that there was also a violation of Article 13.
Finally, it is noted that:
(a) Applicants No. 28, 29, 30 of application No. 4892/2018 also complained of a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR due to the delay in submitting an asylum application for the purpose of family reunification. The ECtHR dismissed this plea as manifestly unfounded, stating inter alia that the delays alleged could not in themselves give rise to a violation of Article 8 ECHR (see more in paras 47-51).
(b) The ECtHR did not consider it appropriate to examine the applicants’ complaints about the living conditions in the Malakasa centre, noting that the complaints in question were only submitted with the applicants’ observations and constituted a new case, which was not covered by the application communicated to the Government (see more in paras. 52-54).
Respect for fundamental rights is one of the key components of the rule of law.
The fundamental rights that every citizen should enjoy are guaranteed in the European Convention on Human Rights, and the state is obliged to respect these rights.
In this particular case, however, the European Court of Human Rights found that, due mainly to overcrowding, the conditions in which the applicants were detained by the state were inhuman and degrading. Furthermore, the applicants had no effective remedy available to them to complain about those conditions. The Court therefore found Greece to be in violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the ECHR.
Bank Account number: 1100 0232 0016 560
IBAN: GR56 0140 1100 1100 0232 0016 560
BIC: CRBAGRAA
In a time where the very foundations of democracy are gradually being eroded by the rise of extreme nationalism, alt-right movements, the spread of disinformation and corporate capture, the efforts of organisations such as Vouliwatch are more relevant than ever.
We rely on the generosity of each and every one of you to continue with our efforts for more transparency and accounta
By financially supporting Vouliwatch you support our litigation strategy, our campaigns for transparency and accountability in the political system, the development of new civic tech tools, our research projects and last but not least our impartial and accurate
