The applicant, J.B., is a Syrian national born in 1965 and living in Caen, France. He stated that he left Syria in April 2015 because he faced danger from Islamic State due to his Armenian ethnicity and Christian faith, as well as the ongoing conflict in the country. He travelled through Lebanon to Türkiye, where he remained for approximately one year under temporary protection status. He then entered Greece via Lesvos and was arrested on 7 May 2016 by the Greek authorities for unlawful entry.
On 9 May 2016, J.B. expressed his intention to seek asylum in Greece. During his asylum interview, he explained that he had concealed his Armenian ethnicity and Christian religion while in Türkiye and argued that he did not feel safe there because of tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan and Türkiye’s support for Azerbaijan.
On 27 May 2016, the Regional Asylum Office of Lesvos rejected his application for international protection as inadmissible, finding that Türkiye was either his first country of asylum or a safe third country. The decision relied on the EU-Türkiye Statement of 18 March 2016. J.B. appealed unsuccessfully through both the administrative and judicial systems.
Separately, on 9 May 2016, the Director of the Lesvos Police Directorate issued an expulsion order directing his return to Türkiye and ordered his detention pending removal. Following legal proceedings initiated by J.B., a fresh expulsion decision was issued on 22 July 2016 without a detention order. His challenge to that decision was also unsuccessful.
Between 3 June and 22 July 2016, J.B. was detained at Mytilene police station after being transferred from Moria camp.
Before the European Court of Human Rights, J.B. complained under Article 13, taken together with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, that there were deficiencies in the examination of his asylum claim and in the removal process. He also complained under Article 3 that he faced a risk of ill-treatment if returned to Türkiye, including the possibility of chain refoulement to Syria, and that the conditions of his detention in Mytilene police station were inhuman and degrading.
The application was lodged on 9 September 2016.
In relation to the complaint concerning removal to Türkiye, the Court noted that J.B. had subsequently moved to France and had been granted refugee status there. As a result, it considered that it was no longer justified to continue examining this aspect of the case and struck that complaint out of its list.
The Court nevertheless proceeded to examine the complaint under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 concerning the effectiveness of the asylum and removal procedures in Greece. It found that J.B. had raised an arguable claim regarding the risks associated with his proposed return to Türkiye and was therefore entitled to an effective remedy.
The Court observed that his asylum claim had undergone detailed examination by the Greek Asylum Service, the Appeals Committee and the domestic courts. The decisions demonstrated that the authorities had considered his personal circumstances, the country information available concerning Türkiye and the specific risks he alleged.
The Court emphasised that the return process operated within the framework of cooperation between Greece and Türkiye under the EU-Türkiye Statement. The Greek authorities had not relied solely on diplomatic assurances but had also examined objective material, including reports, statistics and communications from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other organisations.
The Court considered a number of assurances provided by the Turkish authorities and European institutions. These included confirmation that Syrian nationals returned under the EU-Türkiye Statement would be granted temporary protection status, that Türkiye had adopted the necessary legal amendments, and that monitoring by the European Union and UNHCR would be permitted. Taken together with the wider material reviewed by the domestic authorities, these assurances provided a coherent basis upon which the authorities could reasonably conclude that there was no systematic practice of refoulement from Türkiye to Syria.
The Court therefore held that J.B. had benefited from effective procedural safeguards. He had been given an opportunity to challenge the presumption that Türkiye was a safe third country and the Greek authorities had carried out an individual assessment of his case. Accordingly, there had been no violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 3.
As regards the conditions of detention, the Court recalled its previous findings concerning prolonged detention in Greek police stations. J.B. had spent one month and nineteen days in Mytilene police station, a facility lacking the amenities required for long-term detention. Consistent with its established case-law, the Court found that the conditions of detention breached Article 3 of the Convention.
The Court therefore found a violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicant’s detention conditions.
Click here to read the judgment.