REPORTS
European Court of Human Rights finds Greece to be in violation of Article 5, paragraph 4 of the ECHR in the case of E.K. v. Greece
According to Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (hereafter the ECHR), “1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law; 4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.”
On 14-1-2021, the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter ECtHR) in the case of E.K. v. Greece (application no. 73700/13) was published, concluding that Greece had violated Article 5 paragraph 4 of the ECHR in this case. See the decision, as posted on the HUDOC database here and the ECtHR press release here.
The case concerned the applicant’s conditions of detention in the Soufli and Feres border posts, the Attika Sub-Directorate for Aliens (Petrou Ralli) and the Amygdaleza Detention Centre (Article 3), the lawfulness of his detention, (Article 5 paragraph 1) and whether the review of the lawfulness of that detention had been effective (Article 5 paragraph 4).
The applicant’s detention took place in 2013, initially in view of deportation, during which he applied for asylum. The applicant lodged objections with the Greek administrative courts against the decision ordering his detention, complaining, inter alia, of the conditions of his detention. These objections were rejected on various grounds (including that he was likely to abscond, and that his detention was necessary for a speedy and effective examination of his asylum application).
The ECtHR ruled that there was no violation of Articles 3 and 5, paragraph 1 of the ECHR. The Court noted that while it had previously found violations of Article 3 of the Convention due to the inadequate nature of the detention conditions prevailing in certain detention centers (Soufli, Feres and Petrou Ralli), the time periods covered by the relevant decisions do not coincide with those of the applicant’s detention in this case. Holding that it had not been established that the conditions in the Amygdaleza detention center had been found to be inhuman and degrading, it ruled that there had been no violation of Article 3. The applicant’s detention was found to be in accordance with Article 5 (1), since the period of his detention (until he was released on recognition of his refugee status) should not in principle be considered excessive, while it also did not exceed the maximum time limits set by Greek law.
However, the Court noted that the applicant had not benefited from a sufficiently thorough assessment of the lawfulness of his detention to highlight the remedies and other channels provided under domestic law and case-law. That was particularly true with regard to the complaints concerning his conditions of detention, in connection with which the Court had found violations on several occasions in other cases. The Court therefore found a violation of Article 5, paragraph 4 of the Convention.
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 obligation of the state to respect these rights.
In this case, however, the European Court of Human Rights found that the applicant’s rights had been violated as he did not benefit from a sufficiently thorough assessment of the lawfulness of his detention. Similar complaints about detention conditions are repeatedly made by foreigners before the administrative courts, while similar violations have been identified several times by the ECtHR itself.
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
