Communicated cases against Croatia (Application No. 18810/19), Sweden (Application No. 32825/18), and Greece (Application No. 8716/20)

• S.B. and Others v Croatia (Application No. 18810/19): The applicants are Syrian nationals who currently reside in Germany and The Netherlands. In October 2018, they claim to have entered Croatia from Bosnia and Herzegovina on different occasions with groups of other persons. The applicants claim, inter alia, that they were apprehended by armed Croatian officers and forced to return to Bosnia and Herzegovina without being allowed to submit any kind of statement or having their situation examined in any manner. They complain that their respective returns without an assessment of the risk exposed them to dire living conditions and a dysfunctional asylum system contrary to Article 3 ECHR. They also complain that they were expelled from Croatia to Bosnia and Herzegovina together with a group of other individuals, without their situation being reviewed in any way, contrary to Article 4 Protocol No. 4. They further complain under Article 13 ECHR that they did not have access to a procedure or remedy to challenge their removal.
   
• Shamkhatov v Sweden (Application No. 32825/18): The case concerns a child of Kazakh origin whose parents died in 2006. He moved Sweden in 2011 with his brother to join their grandmother who had been living in Sweden. The applicant was placed in foster care after his grandmother, who has since left Sweden, was deemed to be unable to care for him. The Migration Agency ordered his deportation to Kazakhstan after rejecting his application for asylum and refusing leave to appeal. The applicant complains that his deportation is contrary to Article 8 ECHR as he is well integrated in Swedish society and now living with a foster family.
   
• N.E. and Others v Greece (Application No. 8716/20): The case concerns the living conditions of a number of pregnant women and, in two cases, their new-born children. The applicants were accommodated in tents in a forest or containers outside hotspots. The applicants complain that the living conditions were incompatible with Article 3 and Article 8 ECHR.   

This item was reproduced with the permission of ECRE from the ELENA Weekly Legal Update. The purpose of these updates is to inform asylum lawyers and legal organizations supporting asylum seekers and refugees of recent developments in the field of asylum law. Please note that the information provided is taken from publicly available information on the internet. Every reasonable effort is made to make the content accurate and up to date at the time each item is published but no responsibility for its accuracy and correctness, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by ECRE.