CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 octobre 2014

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 178 October 2014 Sharifi and Others v. Italy and Greece - 16643/09 Judgment 21.10.2014 [Section II] Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens Indiscriminate collective expulsions to Greece: violation Facts – The four applicants stated that on various dates in 2007 and 2008 they had entered Greek territory from Afghanistan. After illegally boarding vessels for Italy, they had arrived between January 2008 and February 2009 in the port of Ancona, where the border police had intercepted them and immediately deported them back to Greece. According to the applicants, this practice of immediate return had already been followed for several months by the Italian authorities. Neither Italy nor Greece had authorised them to apply for asylum. In respect of Greece, they complained of the difficulties encountered in the procedures for obtaining asylum. In respect of Italy, the applicants alleged that they had been unable to contact lawyers or interpreters. They had been given no information about their rights. Equally, they had been given no “official, written and translated” document concerning their return. They alleged that the Italian border police had immediately taken them back to the ships from which they had just disembarked. Law – Compliance with Article   4 of Protocol No.   4 by Italy: It followed from the Government’s observations that, in order for the applicants to have their case examined and decided by the Dublin Unit within the Ministry of the Interior, they had to have expressed, during the identification process, a wish to benefit from asylum or another form of international protection. Consequently, a lack of essential information in a comprehensible language during the identification process in the port of Ancona would deprive intercepted immigrants of any possibility of claiming asylum in Italy. The participation of officials from the Italian Council for Refugees and of an interpreter during the identification process had therefore been crucial. However, even in the case of the sole applicant whose name appeared in the register of the Italian immigration authorities, there was nothing in the case file to confirm their involvement. In any event, the case file contained no request for readmission sent to the Greek authorities in application of Article   5 of the 1999 bilateral agreement between Italy and Greece on readmission and of the protocol on its execution. This finding seemed to corroborate the fears of the Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Human Rights Council, to the effect that readmission to Greece as practised in the Italian ports of the Adriatic Sea was frequently in breach of the scope of the 1999 bilateral agreement and the procedures laid down in it. Equally, the concerns expressed by the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe with regard to what he described as “automatic returns” from Italy to Greece could not be overlooked. In sum, the fact that the border police in the ports of the Adriatic Sea carried out immediate returns, with no safeguards for the persons concerned, seemed to be confirmed. In those circumstances, the measures to which the applicants had been subjected in the port of Ancona amounted to collective and indiscriminate expulsions. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). The Court also held, unanimously, that there had been a violation by Greece of Article   13 in conjunction with Article   3 of the Convention, and a violation by Italy of Article   3, of Article   13 taken together with Article   3 of the Convention and of Article   4 of Protocol No.   4. Article 41: claim made out of time in respect of Italy; no claim made against Greece   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes