Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T11:35:29.718Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary (Eur. Ct. H.R.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2020

Vladislava Stoyanova
Vladislava Stoyanova*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Lund University.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) Grand Chamber decided in Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary that the holding of the applicants, who were asylum-seekers, in the “transit zone” between Hungary and Serbia did not amount to deprivation of liberty under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). On this point, the Grand Chamber overruled the unanimously adopted Chamber judgment. At the same time, the Grand Chamber ruled that Hungary had violated Article 3 ECHR since Hungary did not assess the risk of ill-treatment for the applicants in Serbia.

Type
International Legal Documents
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 59 , Issue 3 , June 2020 , pp. 495 - 553
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 by The American Society of International Law

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ENDNOTES

1 App. No. 47287/15 (Nov. 21, 2019) [hereinafter Ilias].

2 App. No. 47287/15 (Mar. 14, 2017).

3 Ilias, supra, note 1, ¶ 163.

4 See generally Procedural Review in European Fundamental Rights Cases (Janneke Gerards & Eva Brems eds., 2017).

5 See Vladislava Stoyanova, How Exceptional Must “Very Exceptional” Be? Non-refoulement, Socio-Economic Deprivation and Paposhvili v Belgium, 29 Int'l J. Refugee L. 580 (2017); Id., Populism, Exceptionality, and the Right to Family Life of Migrants under the European Convention on Human Rights, 10 Eur. J. Legal Stud. 83 (2018).

6 Ilias, supra, note 1, ¶ 213.

7 Id.

8 Id. ¶ 228.

9 Id. ¶¶ 214, 216, 219.

10 Id. ¶ 240: “applicants could not leave … without authorization to board an airplane and without diplomatic assurances concerning their only possible destination, Syria, a country ‘not bound by the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.’” (citing Amuur v. France, App. No. 19776/92 (June 25, 1996) ¶ 48).

11 Z.A. and Others v. Russia [GC], App. Nos. 61411/15, 61420/15, 61427/15, & 3028/16 (Nov. 21, 2019) ¶ 154: “unlike in land border transit zones, in this particular case leaving the Sheremetyevo airport transit zone would have required planning, contacting aviation companies, purchasing tickets and possibly applying for a visa depending on the destination.”

12 Ilias, supra, note 1, ¶¶ 236, 241.

13 Amuur, supra note 10, ¶ 48.

14 Ilias, supra, note 1, ¶ 240.

15 Id. ¶ 242.

16 Id.