The case concerned the removal of a Syrian national from Germany, where he had expressed the wish to request asylum, to Greece, on the day of his arrival (4 September 2018) under an administrative arrangement concluded between the two countries in 2018. The case also concerned the applicant’s detention in Greece.

Before the ECtHR, the applicant complained under Article 3 and 13 that he was removed from Germany without his asylum application being registered and without an assessment of the risk of chain refoulement from Greece to Türkiye and to Syria. He also complained that the German authorities did not assess the risk of him being detained in Greece in inadequate conditions without any individual guarantees being obtained from Greece.

Under Article 5(1) and (4) of the European Convention that his detention was arbitrary and that he did not an effective remedy to challenge its lawfulness.

The ECtHR found a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 3 for the applicant’s removal to Greece. The court noted that Germany knew or ought to have known about the general shortcomings in the Greek asylum system especially considering the information available from the European Commission, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, UNHCR and especially after the ECtHR judgment in MSS v Belgium and Greece, as in its aftermath, Dublin transfers to Greece were suspended for several years. This meant that the German authorities had an insufficient basis to presume in general that after removal to Greece, the applicant would have access to an adequate asylum procedure that would protect him against refoulement and that he would not risk being exposed to treatment contrary to Article 3.

The court distinguished between this case and Ilias and Ahmed, as in this case the return took place based on an administrative arrangement between Germany and Greece so that the Greek authorities were notified of the removal whereas in Ilias and Ahmed, the applicants were induced to enter Serbia illegally, which exacerbated the risks of denial of access to asylum procedures in Serbia. The court further observed that the arrangement between Germany and Greece did not include provisions guaranteeing access to an effective asylum procedure in Greece and protection from treatment contrary to Article 3, such as inadequate conditions of detention or living conditions for asylum applicants. In addition, the German authorities did not seek individual guarantees for the applicant, nor did they argue that they had assessed such risks prior to removal and the removal order did not include an individual assessment of whether he would run a real risk of being denied access to an asylum procedure in Greece and whether he would face inadequate conditions of detention in Greece.

The court also observed that the German authorities did not provide initially the correct information to the applicant about the country to which he was going to be removed, the legal basis for removal and information on challenging that decision. The applicant was provided the order shortly before departure for the airport, was not in Arabic, no interpreter was present, and he was not assisted by a lawyer.

The court concluded that Germany failed to discharge its procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to ensure that the applicant was not at risk of being denied access to an adequate asylum procedure in Greece and would not be detained in conditions contrary to Article 3. It held that the removal from Germany to Greece was in violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

The court observed that the applicant managed to lodge another asylum application in Greece, assessed in the regular asylum procedure as he was considered a vulnerable person, and he was granted refugee status, which protected him from refoulement to Syria. Nonetheless, the court highlighted that this turn of events was neither guaranteed nor reasonably foreseeable when Germany removed the applicant to Greece without discharging their procedural obligation.

The ECtHR also found a violation of Article 3 for inadequate conditions of detention in Greece in Leros police station for a period of two months and seventeen days. The court noted that the respective police station lacked the amenities required for prolonged periods of detention.

Under Article 5(1), the court found that the applicant’s detention was justified as it had taken place pending expulsion and was needed for administrative formalities to be completed. However, the court found a violation of Article 5(4) for lack of an examination of the legality of his detention.