CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 avril 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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .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. 173 April 2014 A.C. and Others v. Spain - 6528/11, 6529/11, 6530/11 et al. Judgment 22.4.2014 [Section III] Article 13 Effective remedy Lack of suspensive effect of judicial-review proceedings of applications for international protection: violation Article 46 Article 46-2 Execution of judgment Individual measures Respondent State required to ensure that applicants could remain on its territory pending final decision on their applications for international protection Facts – The 30 applicants, all of Sahrawi origin, arrived in Spain in 2011 and 2012 and lodged applications for international protection. The 30   applications were rejected, as were the applicants’ subsequent requests to have them reconsidered. The applicants then applied for judicial review of the decisions to reject their applications, at the same time seeking a stay of execution of the orders for their deportation. After ordering the administrative authorities to provisionally suspend the applicants’ removal, the Audiencia Nacional rejected the 30   applications for a stay of execution. Following requests by the applicants for interim measures, the European Court indicated to the Spanish Government under Rule   39 of the Rules of Court that the applicants should not be removed for the duration of the proceedings before it. The Audiencia Nacional rejected the applications for judicial review lodged by some of the applicants, who then appealed on points of law to the Supreme Court. By the date of its judgment, the Court had had no information as to the outcome of those appeals. Law Article 13 of the Convention: The Court was not required to determine whether there might be a violation of Articles   2 and 3 of the Convention in the event of the applicants’ deportation. It was first and foremost for the Spanish authorities themselves, which were responsible for asylum matters, to examine the applicants’ applications and the documents produced by them and to assess the risks they would face in Morocco. The Court’s fundamental concern was whether effective safeguards were in place to protect the applicants from arbitrary removal, whether direct or indirect, to their country of origin, given that their appeals on the merits were still pending before the domestic courts. The application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court had been the only means of suspending the procedure for the applicants’ removal. After their applications for a stay of execution had been rejected by the Audiencia Nacional , there had been no further obstacle to their removal. Admittedly, the effectiveness of a remedy within the meaning of Article   13 of the Convention did not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant. However, without the Court’s intervention, the applicants would have been returned to Morocco without the merits of their case having been examined as thoroughly and rapidly as possible, since their applications for judicial review did not as such have automatic suspensive effect capable of staying the execution of the orders for their deportation. Furthermore, the applicants had arrived in Spain between January 2011 and August 2012, and since then they had been in a provisional situation of legal uncertainty and material insecurity pending final decisions on their applications. Where a remedy did not have suspensive effect or an application for a stay of execution was rejected, it was essential that in expulsion cases involving Articles   2 and 3 of the Convention in which the Court had applied Rule   39, the courts should act with special diligence and determine the merits rapidly. Otherwise, the remedies would cease to be effective. In conclusion, the applicants had not had a remedy satisfying the requirements of Article   13 in respect of their complaints under Articles   2 and 3 of the Convention. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Rule 39 of the Rules of Court: The respondent State was to refrain from deporting the applicants until such time as the present judgment became final or the Court gave a further decision in the case. Article 46 of the Convention: Regard being had to the special circumstances of the case, to the fact that the violation of Article   13 of the Convention resulted from the non-suspensive effect of judicial proceedings concerning the applicants’ applications for international protection, and to the fact that those applications were still pending even though the first group of applicants had applied for asylum on arriving in Spain in January 2011, the respondent State was to ensure that, from a legal and material perspective, the applicants remained within Spanish territory while their cases were being examined, pending a final decision by the domestic authorities on their applications for international protection.   © 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