CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 décembre 2022

.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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .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 } Legal summary April 2024 C.O.C.G. and Others v. Lithuania (relinquishment) - 17764/22   Article 2 Expulsion Article 2-1 Life relinquishment in favour of the Grand Chamber Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Expulsion Allegations of summary returns (pushbacks) at the Lithuanian-Belarusian border without examination of asylum claims; allegations of ill-treatment by Lithuanian border guards: relinquishment in favour of the Grand Chamber Article 5 Article 5-1 Deprivation of liberty Article 5-2 Information on reasons for arrest Article 5-4 Review of lawfulness of detention Take proceedings Allegations of detention of asylum-seekers at aliens’ reception facilities without an individualised assessment: relinquishment in favour of the Grand Chamber Article 13 Effective remedy Alleged lack of an effective remedy for complaints of summary returns (pushbacks) at the Lithuanian-Belarusian border and of ill-treatment by Lithuanian border guards: relinquishment in favour of the Grand Chamber Article 34 Hinder the exercise of the right of application Alleged failure to comply with interim measure indicated by the Court under Rule   39 not to remove the applicants to Belarus: relinquishment in favour of the Grand Chamber Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens Allegations of summary returns (pushbacks) at the Lithuanian-Belarusian border without examination of asylum claims: relinquishment in favour of the Grand Chamber The four applicants, Cuban nationals, left Cuba in 2021, allegedly in fear of their safety because they had taken part in anti-government protests. They travelled to Russia and stayed there until March 2022 when they left for Belarus with the intention of crossing into and seeking asylum in Lithuania.   They submit that they attempted on several occasions in March and April 2022 to cross the Belarusian-Lithuanian border on foot but each time Lithuanian border guards pushed them back, at gunpoint, into Belarusian territory, without giving them an opportunity to submit asylum applications. On the last occasion, the Court had in the meantime granted the applicants’ request for an interim measure ordering the Lithuanian Government not to remove the applicants if they were present on Lithuanian territory. The applicants were nonetheless removed to Belarus. When they re-entered Lithuania they were apprehended by border guards and placed at different aliens’ reception facilities, without the right to leave the premises. They were eventually allowed to lodge asylum applications and were subsequently granted asylum and issued with permanent residence permits. Relying on Articles   2 and 3 of the Convention the applicants complain that they were ill‑treated by Lithuanian border guards. Furthermore, they complain under the above provisions as well as Article   4 of Protocol No.   4 to the Convention of their repeated summary returns to Belarus, which was not a safe third country, without any assessment of their asylum claims. Relying on Article   13 they complain that they did not have an effective remedy with regard to the above complaints. The applicants also allege under Article   5 §§   1, 2 and 4 that their deprivation of liberty was unjustified, they were not informed about the reasons thereof and did not have a possibility to challenge it. Lastly, they complain under Article   34 that the Government failed to comply with the interim measure indicated by the Court. On 16   April 2024 a Chamber of the Court relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. To access legal summaries in English or French click here . For non-official translations into other languages click here .