Communicated cases against Greece (Application No. 65275/19), the Netherlands and Italy (App no. 48062/19), Russia (App No. 48352/19), and Sweden (App No. 50449/18)

Several cases were recently communicated against Greece, the Netherlands and Italy, Russia and Sweden:

• W.S v Greece (Application No. 65275/19): The applicant is an unaccompanied child from Afghanistan. He complains that due to his status as a minor and his health conditions that he was subject to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR. He also complains that the treatment of his asylum request violated his rights under Article 8 (1) ECHR. The Court also asks whether the failure to provide reception conditions compatible with Article 3 ECHR as indicated by the Court in its interim measures shows that there has been a hinderance by the State with the effective exercise of the applicant’s right of application under Article 34 ECHR.
   
• Tewelde and Others v Russia (App No. 48352/19): The applicants are Eritrean nationals who left for Sudan on different dates to avoid mandatory military or national service. They later travelled to Russia using Fan IDs, providing visa free travel during the 2018 FIFA World Cup. The Russian authorities ordered their administrative removal for overstaying their visa free stay. The applicants are currently detained pending their removal and their asylum requests were rejected. They complain that their removal to Eritrea would expose them to a real risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR. They further complain under Article 5(1)(f) and (4) that their detention pending removal is unlawful and that they had no access to an effective procedure to challenge their detention.
   
• M.A v Sweden (App No. 50449/18): The applicant, a Libyan national, made an application for asylum in Sweden in 2017. He had claimed that his brother had been killed by militia, who had also burned down his family home, and that if he returned to Libya he would be killed either by militia or as a consequence of the general situation of violence. His application for asylum and all subsequent appeals were rejected. The applicant complains that his return would expose him to a risk of death or a real risk of ill-treatment, contrary to Articles 2 and 3 ECHR respectively.
   
• V.A and Others v The Netherlands and Italy (app no. 48062/19): The case concerns the Dublin returns of Nigerian national from The Netherlands to Italy. The cases are brought following the conclusion that the Italian “Salvini Decree” did not find that asylum proceedings and reception conditions were affected by systemic shortcomings. The questions referred include, inter alia, a request for clarification of the meaning of ‘special protection’ residence permits. The Court seeks to clarify, in light of new information provided by the Italian Government in December 2019, under which framework will the applicants be returned to Italy.

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 pusexblished but no responsibility for its accuracy and correctness, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by ECRE.