ECtHR Condemnations of Greece in 2024 for Violations of Article 3 of the ECHR

In 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued 13 judgments in which it found that Greece had violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). These rulings concerned, among other issues, the conditions of reception, living, and/or detention of applicants for international protection, detention conditions in police facilities, and the state’s positive obligations in cases involving allegations of rape.

Β. In 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued thirteen (13) judgments in which it found that Greece had violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The majority of these rulings concerned violations of the substantive limb of Article 3, due to the living and/or detention conditions of the applicants. Several of the cases involved asylum seekers and unaccompanied minors. One judgment (X v. Greece) addressed a violation of the state’s positive obligations under Article 3 (and Article 8), due to the failure of investigative and judicial authorities to adequately respond to a rape allegation.

Full details:

1. Case: T.K. v. Greece (Application no. 16112/20) Date of judgment: 18 January 2024  (For more details, see 1 and 2)

The case concerned the applicant’s living conditions in the Samos camp, the lack of procedural safeguards during the age assessment process conducted by the authorities, and the absence of an effective remedy in relation to these complaints.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), noting that the applicant—an unaccompanied minor—remained in the area surrounding the Samos camp from October 2019 until an unspecified date, and taking into account its findings in A.D. v. Greece, held that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR (see paragraphs 26–27 of the judgment).

The Court also found violations of:

• Article 8, as the authorities failed to exercise due diligence in ensuring procedural safeguards during the age assessment process and thus did not fulfill their positive obligation to protect the applicant as an unaccompanied minor seeking international protection (see paragraphs 18–25); and
• Article 13, due to the lack of an effective remedy allowing the applicant to challenge the age determination procedure, the appointment of a guardian, and the material reception conditions in and around the Samos camp.

2. Case: O.R. v. Greece (Application no. 24650/19) Date of judgment: 23 January 2024. (For more details see 1 and 2)

The case concerned the living conditions of the applicant, an unaccompanied minor and asylum seeker, who appears to have remained for nearly six months without shelter, without access to basic necessities, and without a guardian appointed by the authorities.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that, between November 2018 and May 2019, the applicant had been left entirely on his own by the Greek authorities, in an environment wholly unsuitable for his status as a minor and in a state of precarity that was deemed unacceptable given his vulnerability as an unaccompanied child seeking asylum. The Court concluded that the applicant had been placed—through the inaction of the authorities—in a situation amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment, in violation of Article 3 of the ECHR.

3. Case: W.S. v. Greece (Application no. 65275/19) Date of judgment: 23 May 2024.  (For full details see 1, 2)

The case concerned the living conditions of the applicant, an unaccompanied minor and asylum seeker, as well as the conditions of his detention in police stations under the regime of “protective custody.” The applicant complained, among other things, about the inadequate living conditions he endured between October 2019 and January 2020, specifically: i) the lack of stable housing and access to basic necessities, as well as the absence of consistent supervision by the competent authorities; and ii) the conditions of his detention, which caused him severe physical and psychological distress.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), noting that it had already found violations of Article 3 of the ECHR in similar cases involving unaccompanied minors left to survive alone in conditions of extreme deprivation or held in police custody under protective detention, concluded that a violation of Article 3 had also occurred in the present case.

4. Case: T.S. and M.S. v. Greece (Application no. 15008/19) Date of judgment: 3 October 2024.  For full details see 1 and 2

The case concerned two sisters, who were unaccompanied minors at the time they lodged their application before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The applicants complained, among other things, about their living and detention conditions, the deprivation of their liberty, and the lack of an effective procedure to challenge the lawfulness of their detention.

The ECtHR found a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR with regard to both the living conditions the applicants endured between 23 January 2019 and their placement in protective custody (see §§70–74), and the conditions of their detention following their placement in protective custody at the Tavros Pre-Removal Detention Centre (see §§77–79).

Additionally, the Court found a violation of Article 5 §1, ruling that the applicants’ detention under the protective custody regime was not lawful (see §§82–85), and a violation of Article 5 §4, noting that in the absence of a formal decision, the applicants had no effective means to challenge the legality of their detention. Referring the matter to the facility’s director was deemed ineffective, as the applicants were under prosecutorial supervision.

5. Case: T.A. and Others v. Greece (Applications nos. 15293/20, 15459/20, 15713/20, 15775/20) Date of judgment: 3 October 2024

The case concerned the living conditions of the applicants—unaccompanied minors and asylum seekers—who arrived in Greece in 2019 and were placed in the Reception and Identification Centre (RIC) of Samos.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), citing credible sources, noted that during the relevant period (September 2019 to May 2020), conditions at the Samos RIC were marked by severe overcrowding, lack of access to medical and sanitary facilities, insufficient food supplies, insecurity, and high levels of violence. The Court concluded that the applicants had been subjected to treatment incompatible with the standards of the Convention, particularly given their status as vulnerable minors, and therefore found a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR.

6. Case: N.N. and Others v. Greece (Applications nos. 59319/19, 5340/20, 11507/20) Date of judgment: 19 December 2024. For full details see 1 and 2

The case concerned the living conditions of the applicants, who claimed that at the time of lodging their applications before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), they were homeless unaccompanied minor migrants in Greece.

The ECtHR noted, among other things, that:

• the applicants had lived either in “protective custody” under unacceptable conditions, on the streets, or in degraded housing for periods ranging from 1.5 to 5 months;
• they were registered as minors and placed in age-appropriate living conditions only after the Court applied interim measures; and
• the delays in their placement in reception facilities were, in the Court’s view, due to deficiencies in the registration and age assessment procedures.

The Court concluded that the treatment to which the applicants were subjected—as homeless, unaccompanied foreign minors—exceeded the threshold of severity required to trigger the application of Article 3 of the ECHR, and therefore found a violation of that provision.

7. Case: A.I. and Others v. Greece (Application no. 13958/16) Date of judgment: 18 January 2024. For full details see 1, 2

The case concerned a father and his two minor children, who complained, among other things, about their living conditions in the Idomeni camp in 2016.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), taking into account: a) the vulnerability of the applicants—the father due to health issues and the children due to their age; and b) the findings of various organizations and its own prior case law regarding the conditions in the Idomeni camp during the relevant period (see §§52 and 54–55 of the judgment), found that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR with respect to the applicants’ living conditions in the camp.

8. Case: M.A. and Others v. Greece (Applications nos. 15192/20, 15728/20, 16094/20, 16511/20) Date of judgment: 3 October 2024. For full details see  1, 2

The case concerned the living conditions of the applicants—asylum seekers who arrived on the Greek islands in 2019 and were placed in the Reception and Identification Centres (RICs) of Samos and Chios. Given the similarity of the facts, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) examined the four applications jointly and reached the following conclusions:

• M.A. (15192/20): The Court found a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR regarding the applicant’s living conditions at the Vial RIC in Chios between October 2019 and December 2020. It noted that overcrowding and the fact that the applicant had to live in a temporary tent for over nine months had a devastating impact on his living conditions and access to medical and sanitary facilities.
• C.K. (15728/20): This case involved an unaccompanied minor placed in the safe zone for minors at the Samos RIC in October 2019. The Court found a violation of Article 3, stating that the conditions—both in the general camp and the safe zone—were inadequate, and there was no evidence that the applicant had been placed in conditions appropriate for an unaccompanied minor. The Court also found a violation of Article 34, due to the Greek authorities’ failure to comply in time with the interim measure ordered by the Court.
• A.G.D. and D.M. (16094/20): This case involved an unaccompanied minor and her child, who remained in the safe zone of the Samos RIC from October 2019 to April 2020. The Court again found a violation of Article 3, citing the same inadequate conditions and lack of evidence that the applicants had been placed in settings suitable for unaccompanied minors.
• F.J. and Others (16511/20): The Court found a violation of Article 3 concerning the living conditions of the applicants—a young couple (both 21 years old) and their two infant children—at the Samos RIC between December 2019 and April 2020. It held that the four-month placement of the family, especially the infants, in such conditions was incompatible with the guarantees of the Convention.

9. Case: A.R. and Others v. Greece (Applications nos. 59841/19, 15782/20, 21997/20) Date of judgment: 18 April 2023. For full details see 1, 2

The case concerned the living conditions and access to medical care for the applicants—asylum seekers who arrived on the Greek islands in 2019 and were placed in Reception and Identification Centres (RICs).

Given the similarity of the facts, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) examined the three applications jointly and reached the following conclusions:

• A.R. (59841/19): The Court found a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR regarding the applicant’s living conditions between October and November 2019, noting that nearly six weeks without shelter or access to even basic living conditions was incompatible with the Convention’s guarantees. It also found a violation of Article 5 §2, as the applicant had not been informed—in a language she understood—of the reasons for her detention.
• M.A. (15782/20): The Court found a violation of Article 3 concerning the applicant’s living conditions at the Vial RIC in Chios between October 2019 and December 2020, highlighting that overcrowding had a negative impact on both his living conditions and his access to medical and sanitary facilities.
• W.A. (21997/20): The Court found a violation of Article 3 due to the applicant’s living conditions at the Samos RIC between August 2019 and July 2020. It cited credible sources describing the camp during that period as suffering from severe overcrowding, lack of access to healthcare, insufficient food, insecurity, and high crime rates. The Court also found a second violation of Article 3, as the applicant—despite having a serious medical condition known to the authorities—was left for at least ten months without appropriate medical monitoring or treatment.

10. Case: H.T. v. Germany and Greece (Application no. 13337/19) Date of judgment: 15 October 2024. For full details see 1, 2

The case concerned the removal of the applicant, a Syrian national who had expressed his intention to seek asylum in Germany, from Germany to Greece under an administrative arrangement between the two countries. It also addressed the conditions and legality of his detention in Greece, as well as the judicial review of that detention.

Regarding the applicant’s complaints against Greece, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) reached the following conclusions:

• Article 3 violation: The Court found that the applicant’s detention conditions in Greece—specifically, his two-month and seventeen-day detention (from September to November 2018) at the Leros Police Station, a facility inherently unsuitable for prolonged detention—amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the ECHR.
• Article 5 §4 violation: The Court also found a violation of Article 5 §4, as the applicant lacked access to an effective remedy to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. The Greek court failed to examine the substance of his claims regarding the detention conditions.

Finally, the Court held that: i) there was no violation of Article 5 §1 by Greece (see §§92–98 of the judgment), and ii) there was a violation of the procedural limb of Article 3 by Germany (see especially §§141–151).

11. Case: Muhammad v. Greece (Application no. 14606/20) Date of judgment: 25 April 2024.  For full details see 1, 2

The case concerned the conditions of detention in police facilities. The applicant complained, among other things, about the poor conditions of his detention at the Vatopedi–Ormylia Immigration Detention Centre between August and September 2019.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), noting that the applicant had been held for over a month in facilities that were inherently unsuitable for prolonged detention, found a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR.

12. Case: Bayram and Astoiani v. Greece (Applications nos. 31030/19, 61775/19) Date of judgment: 16 May 2024. For full details see 1, 2

The case concerned the conditions of detention in police facilities. The applicants complained, among other things, about the poor conditions of their detention at the Thessaloniki Transfer Directorate, where they were held from December 2018 to February 2019 and from April to June 2019, respectively.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), noting that the applicants had been detained for over a month in facilities that were inherently unsuitable for prolonged detention, found a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR

13. Case: X. v. Greece (Application no. 38588/21) Date of judgment: 13 February 2024. For full details see 1, 2

The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that the Greek authorities failed to fulfill their positive obligations to conduct an effective investigation and criminal proceedings in response to her allegations of rape, while also safeguarding her rights as a victim of gender-based violence.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), taking into account the substance and nature of the applicant’s claims, examined them jointly under Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR. The Court noted, among other things, that:

• Under Article 3, states have a positive obligation to enact and enforce criminal law provisions that effectively punish rape, and to apply them in practice through effective investigations and prosecutions.
• The positive obligations under Articles 3 and 8 include protecting the rights of victims during criminal proceedings and taking measures to prevent secondary victimization.
• Although Greece has an adequate legal and regulatory framework, the authorities failed to apply it effectively in this case by not conducting a proper investigation.
• After the applicant filed her complaint, the authorities did not take steps to prevent further trauma or adequately consider her needs.
• Neither the prosecution nor the court analyzed the case through the lens of gender-based violence.

The Court concluded that the failure of the investigative and judicial authorities to respond adequately to the applicant’s rape allegations demonstrated a lack of the rigorous scrutiny required to fulfill the state’s positive obligations under the Convention. As a result, it found a violation of Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR.