Europos Žmogaus Teisių Teismas
2018 m. gruodžio 11 d.
Facts:
M.A., his partner and their children, all Russian nationals of Chechen origin, fled Chechnya in April 2017, claiming that M.A. had been tortured by Russian security forces after refusing to become an informer. The family attempted to cross into Lithuania from Belarus 3 times, each time requesting asylum orally or writing the word ‘azul’ (‘asylum’ in Chechen/Russian) on refusal forms. Lithuanian border guards refused entry stating that they lacked valid documentation to enter the country, did not initiate asylum proceedings, and returned the family to Belarus without offering translation or processing their claims. With Belarus not being a Convention signatory or a safe third country for Chechen nationals, the family ultimately had to return to Russia where M.A. was detained and allegedly beaten. Subsequently, the partner and children were able to apply for asylum in Poland and were admitted to a reception center, and M.A. was allowed entry in March 2018.
Complaint:
The applicants claimed that, by repeatedly removing them to Belarus without consideration of their asylum claims, Lithuania exposed them to a risk of refoulement and inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. They also complained that they had no effective remedy to challenge the refusals of entry violating Article 13, in conjunction with Article 3.
Court’s Ruling:
The Court reaffirmed that Article 3 of the Convention prohibits returning individuals to a country where they face a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. It emphasized that when individuals at a border crossing clearly express an intention to seek asylum, authorities are required to ensure access to an asylum procedure and to assess any risk of ill-treatment in the receiving country. The Court emphasized that, despite the family’s explicit request for asylum, no steps were taken to register or assess their claims. The Court found this particularly serious because Belarus was not a safe country for Chechen nationals, raising real risks of ill-treatment upon return. As a result, the Court held that Lithuania violated Article 3.
Under Article 13, the applicants argued they had no effective remedy to challenge their removal. The Court agreed, explaining that effective protection under Article 13 requires a remedy with suspensive effect, meaning the removal should have been halted pending the outcome of an asylum claim. Lithuania’s procedures lacked this safeguard, as the applicants could have been removed before their claims were examined, thus rendering the family’s right to an effective remedy illusory.
The Court ultimately found violations of both Article 3 and Article 13, stressing the duty of states to provide real and accessible avenues for protection, particularly when potential returnees face a risk of inhumane treatment.