Communicated cases against Denmark, Russia and Belgium

Friday, September 28, 2018

The ECtHR has recently communicated three asylum-related cases:

  • H.G.S. against Belgium (application no 26763/18): The case concerns an Afghan applicant who was denied international protection due to lack of credibility. A subsequent medical report was not taken into account, leading to the rejection of his new application, as no new elements were found. The applicant complains of a violation of Article 3, in its procedural aspect, as well as Article 13, as the standard of proof required was excessive.
  • M.A. against Denmark (application no 6697/18): A Syrian national had been granted temporary protection status by the Danish authorities, as he was not found to qualify for international protection. His request for family reunification was subsequently rejected on the basis of not having his status for more than three years, and due to the lack of any special reasons to justify reunification. As both conditions were introduced by a 2016 legislative amendment and only concern beneficiaries of temporary protection status, the applicant claims his right to non-discrimination (Article 14) and to family life (Article 8) have been violated.
  • N.O. against Russia (application no 84022/17): The communication concerns five cases of removal from Russia, of Tajik and Uzbek nationals. The applicants were arrested by Russian authorities after their countries of origin issued arrest warrants. Rule 39 was granted by the Court, but one of them was returned to Uzbekistan. The applicants claim a violation of Article 3, due to the risk they would face in their countries if returned, as well as the lack of judicial remedies (Article 13), breach of interim measure protection (Article 34) and unlawful detention (Article 5).

This item was reproduced with the permission of ECRE from the weekly ELENA 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.




Credibility assessment
Effective remedy (right to)
Family unity (right to)
Standard of proof