CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 7 juillet 2015

.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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 191 December 2015 V.M. and Others v. Belgium (referral) - 60125/11 Judgment 7.7.2015 [Section II] Article 3 Degrading treatment Family of asylum-seekers with children, including a baby and a disabled child, left homeless and with no means of subsistence for three weeks: case referred to the Grand Chamber Article 13 Effective remedy Lack of effective remedy in asylum proceedings: case referred to the Grand Chamber Facts – The applicants are a couple and their five children. They are of Roma origin. Their eldest daughter, who had a neuromotor disability from birth, died after the lodging of the application. The family, who come from Serbia, travelled first to Kosovo and then to France, where they lodged an asylum application on grounds of discrimination. Their application was rejected in a final decision of June 2010. The family returned to Serbia and then travelled to Belgium, where they lodged a further asylum request in April 2011. Under the Dublin II Regulation* they were served with a decision refusing them leave to remain together with an order to leave the country for France, the country responsible for examining their asylum application. The Belgian authorities stated in particular that there was no evidence that the applicants had left the territory of the European Union Member States for more than three months. The validity of the orders to leave the country was subsequently extended by four months because the mother was pregnant and about to give birth. The applicants appealed against the decision refusing them leave to remain and the orders to leave the country. The proceedings concluded with, among other findings, an acknowledgement by the Aliens Appeals Board that Belgium was responsible for the examination of their asylum application. At the same time, the applicants commenced proceedings seeking regularisation of their immigration status on account of their eldest daughter’s medical condition. It was only during the proceedings before the European Court that they learnt of the decision to declare their request inadmissible. During the asylum proceedings in Belgium the applicants were accommodated in two reception centres. They were expelled from there on 26 September 2011 when the time-limit for enforcement of the orders to leave the country expired. They travelled to Brussels, where voluntary associations directed them to a public square where other homeless Roma families were staying. They remained there from 27 September to 5 October 2011. The accommodation centres for asylum seekers took the view that they could not take in the applicants because the appeal against the decision refusing them leave to remain and ordering them to leave the country did not have suspensive effect. Following the intervention of the Children’s Commissioner for the French-speaking Community, the applicants were taken care of for a few days. After allegedly reporting to a reception centre 160 km away – an assertion contested by the Government – the applicants ended up in a Brussels railway station where they remained, homeless and without any means of subsistence, for three weeks until a charity arranged for their return to Serbia in October 2011. After they had returned to Serbia the eldest daughter’s condition deteriorated and she died of a pulmonary infection in December 2011. In the proceedings before the European Court the applicants complained in particular of the failure, during the period between their eviction from the accommodation centre on 26 September 2011 and their departure for Serbia on 25 October 2011, to provide them with reception facilities to meet their essential needs. In a judgment of 7 July 2015 (see Information Note   187 ) a Chamber of the Court held, in particular, that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the family’s living conditions combined with the lack of any prospect of an improvement in their situation, and a violation of Article 13 on account of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the asylum proceedings. On 14 December 2015 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the Government’s request. *   Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national.   © 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