REPORTS
European Court of Human Rights finds Greece to be in violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the ECHR in the case of E.F. v. Greece
Α. Article 3 of the 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 ECHR 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, 3).
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.
b) The Commissioner for Human Rights visited reception centres in the country in 2018. The report states that overcrowded conditions, poor sanitary conditions, insecurity and desperation were found at the Moria Reception and Identification Centre, which call into question the respect for the rights of migrants and asylum seekers. As regards the provision of health care, the Commissioner noted that despite a favourable legal framework which gave asylum seekers and migrants the right to health care, administrative obstacles and inefficiencies in the public health sector hindered effective access to health care services. Finally, it noted delays and inefficiencies in the process of identifying vulnerabilities of persons in need of special care (see more in 1, 2).
Β. On 5 October 2023 the decision (see 1, 2) in the case of E.F. v. Greece (application no. 16127/20) was delivered.
The case concerns the failure to provide medical care to the applicant, a patient and asylum seeker, as well as the general living conditions in the Moria and Polykastro reception centres.
The applicant complained about her living conditions, alleging a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR. The ECtHR, noting that no specific and detailed information had been provided about her personal situation in the Moria camp, considered that the applicant’s claim was manifestly unfounded and therefore declared it inadmissible under Article 35(3a, 4) of the ECHR. Furthermore, with regard to the allegations concerning the conditions in Polycastro, the ECtHR, taking into account (a) the absence from the file of any substantial evidence in support of the applicant’s allegations as to the conditions in the camp and (b) the short duration of her stay there (21 days), considered that it did not appear from the file that the threshold of gravity required for the qualification of inhuman or degrading treatment was approached and dismissed this part of the application as manifestly unfounded under Article 35 para. 3 and 4 of the ECHR.
The applicant also complained about the medical treatment she was provided with, alleging a violation of Article 3 ECHR.
The ECtHR referred to the general principles arising from the relevant case-law on the detention of patients and acknowledged that it was not disputed that the applicant’s HIV-positive condition had been steadily deteriorating during the period in question. It noted that the applicant received treatment on 23 June 2020, six months after she was registered at Moria and after she had developed severe symptoms of the disease (see more in paragraphs 32 and 33).
The ECtHR, recalling the absolute nature of the protection afforded by Article 3, rejected the Government’s claim that the authorities’ activity was suspended because of the measures against Covid-19 as irrelevant, stating that the doctor had ordered the applicant’s transfer before the closure of the centre (see more in para. 34, 5-7, 10-12).
The ECtHR held that the Greek authorities failed to act with due diligence by failing to take the measures that one could reasonably expect to protect the applicant’s health before 23 June 2020, subjecting her to inhuman and degrading treatment. Taking into account the applicant’s particular vulnerability as an asylum seeker and suffering from a serious illness, the ECtHR concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3 ECHR.
In addition, the applicant complained about the absence of an effective remedy to challenge (a) the living conditions and (b) the lack of medical care in the Polykastro and Moria reception centres, alleging a violation of Article 13 ECHR in combination with Article 3.
The ECtHR, in the light of its reasoning on the allegations of a violation of Article 3 on account of living conditions above, held that the claims relating to living conditions must be rejected as manifestly unfounded (see paragraph 38 above). On the other hand, as regards the plea relating to medical treatment, the ECtHR, noting that the Greek Government had not provided examples of decisions showing that adequate compensation has been obtained for violations in similar situations (para. 18-19), held that the State had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13 ECHR.
Respect for fundamental rights is one of the key components of a state that is governed by the rule of law. The fundamental rights that every citizen should enjoy are enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. It is a primary and indisputable obligation of the state to respect these rights.
In this particular case, however, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that there was a violation of: a) Article 3, finding that the authorities’ failure to provide medical treatment to the sick applicant during the period in question exceeded the threshold of gravity required for the existence of inhuman or degrading treatment; and (b) taking into account that the Government had not provided examples of decisions showing that compensation had been obtained for violations suffered in similar situations, it concluded that there had been a violation of Article 13.
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
