Court
European Court of Human Rights
Decided
October 21, 2014
Docket
Application no. 16643/09; ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:1021JUD001664309
Judge
Chamber of the Second Section: Işıl Karakaş, President; Guido Raimondi; András Sajó; Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos; Helen Keller; Paul Lemmens; Robert Spano. Judge Lemmens concurred.
Outcome
Relief granted in part
Disposition
The operative part is in French; this is the Coalition’s summary translation. Unanimously: the application struck out for thirty-one applicants; for Reza Karimi, Yasir Zaidi, Mozamil Azimi and Najeeb Heideri (also known as Nagib Haidari), a violation by Greece of Article 13 taken with Article 3; a violation by Italy of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4; a violation by Italy of Article 3, because by returning them to Greece the Italian authorities exposed them to the risks arising from the failures of the asylum procedure there; and a violation by Italy of Article 13 taken with Article 3 and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4, for the lack of access to the asylum procedure or any other remedy in the port of Ancona. No need to examine the complaints under Article 2 or Article 34; the remainder of the application inadmissible as against each State. Greece to pay the four EUR 5,000 jointly for costs and expenses; the remainder of the claim dismissed.
Nationality
Thirty-two Afghan nationals, two Sudanese nationals and one Eritrean national. The Court examined the case of the four who had kept in regular contact with their lawyer (paragraph 130). According to the press release, their lawyer told the Court in April 2013 that one of them, Najeeb Heideri, had been granted refugee status in Italy.
Third country
Greece. At the port of Ancona the border police handed them to the captains of the ferries for return to Greece (paragraph 242). According to their lawyer’s letter of 13 April 2011, recorded in the judgment, Reza Karimi was later sent from Italy to Norway under the Dublin II Regulation, by a decision of 28 December 2010, and on arriving in Norway was sent straight back to Afghanistan (paragraph 39).
The applicants said they had reached Greece in 2007 and 2008 from countries in armed conflict, boarded vessels for Italy at Patras, and were sent straight back to Greece by the border police at Bari, Ancona and Venice (press release). The Court found that at Ancona “les requérants ont été remis sur-le-champ par les autorités des frontières aux capitaines des ferry-boats et n’ont pas eu accès à un interprète ni à des agents pouvant leur fournir les informations minimales nécessaires à propos du droit d’asile et de la procédure pertinente” (paragraph 242; the Coalition’s translation: “the applicants were handed over immediately by the border authorities to the captains of the ferries and had no access to an interpreter or to officials who could give them the minimum information needed about the right to asylum and the relevant procedure”).
It held that the measures taken against them at Ancona “s’analysent en des expulsions collectives et indiscriminées” (paragraph 225; the Coalition’s translation: “amount to collective and indiscriminate expulsions”). The Dublin system did not alter that. In the words of the Court’s English press release, “no form of collective and indiscriminate returns could be justified by reference to that system, and it was for the State carrying out the return to ensure that the destination country offered sufficient guarantees in the application of its asylum policy to prevent the person concerned being removed to his country of origin without an assessment of the risks faced.”
Against Greece, the Court found a violation of Article 13 with Article 3 because of “l’absence d’accès à la procédure d’asile et du risque d’expulsion des requérants vers l’Afghanistan, où ils étaient susceptibles de subir des traitements inhumains et dégradants” (paragraph 233; the Coalition’s translation: “the lack of access to the asylum procedure and the risk of the applicants’ expulsion to Afghanistan, where they were liable to suffer inhuman and degrading treatment”). Against Italy, it found that by returning them to Greece the Italian authorities exposed them to the risks arising from the failures of the Greek asylum procedure.
Caution
The judgment was delivered in French only; the English item on HUDOC is a placeholder without text. Quotations from the judgment are given in French with the Coalition’s translation, and English quotations from the Registry’s press release are marked as such; the press release does not bind the Court. The press release says the Court held “by a majority”; the operative part of the judgment says “À L’UNANIMITÉ”, unanimously, and this entry follows the judgment. Thirty-one applicants were struck out under Article 37 § 1 (c); that is not a ruling on the merits of their complaints. The risk of onward expulsion to Afghanistan grounded the finding against Greece, not the findings against Italy.
Collective expulsion
Dublin system
Chain refoulement
Access to asylum
Effective remedy
Article 3 ECHR
Pushbacks
The court's own text
Public copy
Read in full in the French text on HUDOC (item 001-147287) on 8 November 2026; the English item 001-147702 is a placeholder. With the Court’s English press release ECHR 304 (2014) of 21 October 2014.
This entry describes a court decision. It is a summary for readers who are learning how these cases work, not legal advice, and it does not tell anyone what to do in their own case. A decision may have been appealed, stayed, or superseded since this entry was written.
← All decisions in the register