The applicant, S.H., is a Bangladeshi national who arrived in Malta by boat in September 2019 and was immediately placed in detention. He requested international protection, which was later rejected, claiming that he was a journalist in Bangladesh, persecuted after he reported on electoral irregularities in the 2018 elections. The applicant's removal to Bangladesh was suspended in August 2021 when the ECtHR ordered an urgent interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court to the Government of Malta.

The ECtHR found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention and a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), taken in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention due to lack of access to legal counsel, delays in the procedure and failure to examine the merits of the case.

The court concluded that the first asylum procedure which took place in an accelerated manner, ab initio, did not offer effective guarantees to protect the applicant from an arbitrary removal. The applicant was not provided with legal assistance in the preparation of his asylum application, during his interview and throughout the procedure which took place during the COVID-19 pandemic, when he was kept in detention, up until a few days before the first decision was taken. Regarding the interview which took place in an accelerated procedure, the court held that it could not be concluded that it had been conducted in a rushed manner. However, as he did not have a representative and he had been in detention in the previous months, the answers he provided during the interview were not well prepared to the level expected by the authorities to prove his credibility. In addition, the evidence presented by the applicant was not taken into account merely due to the fact that the material consisted of copies, although his identity and nationality were considered established although it was also done so on the basis of copies of identity documents. The court further noted that the International Protection Tribunal confirmed the first instance decision within twenty-four hours, which made it impossible for the applicant, to prepare his defence and submissions while in detention. The court thus considered that the judicial review in the applicant’s case was superficial and devoid of any useful effect, as the Tribunal tended to automatically confirm the Agency’s decision within a short timeframe (maximum three days). Furthermore, the communication of the decision took place several months after the pronouncement, although a removal order was issued a few days after the decision.

Regarding a second application lodged by the applicant, the court noted again the inadequate assessment of the application due to the “incongruent conclusions” reached by the International Protection Agency, which were confirmed by the Tribunal without any reasoning. The court observed that a third application was treated in a similar way and confirmed again by the Tribunal. The ECtHR thus confirmed that the applicant was deprived of a rigorous individual assessment of his asylum claim, in the absence of a risk assessment being conducted in relation to his individual situation as a journalist to be returned to Bangladesh although he had possibly suffered at least one aggression related to his work.

The ECtHR further observed that it was not necessary to examine the procedure before the Refugee Appeals Board, considering that the government had already accepted that the Board had no power to alter the assessment made by the International Protection Agency.

The ECtHR noted that, in Malta, constitutional redress proceedings do not have automatic suspensive effect and therefore they are not an appropriate remedy under Article 13 of the European Convention.

Due to the lack of a risk assessment in respect of the particular situation of the applicant, the ECtHR found that there would be a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention if the applicant were to be removed to Bangladesh without a fresh assessment of his claim.

The judgment remained final after the request of the Government of Malta to refer it to the Grand Chamber was dismissed on 22 May 2023.