According to the press release of the ECtHR:

“The case concerns the removal of the applicants to Bulgaria after they had expressed their intention of seeking asylum in Serbia. At approximately 12.15 a.m. on 3 February 2017, the Serbian authorities arrested the applicants on suspicion of having crossed the border illegally and placed them in detention. At 10.30 p.m. that day, misdemeanour proceedings against the applicants were discontinued and the police subsequently transported them to the Bulgarian border and forced them to cross.

Relying on Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens) to the Convention, the applicants allege that the Serbian authorities had compelled them to leave the country without having conducted an individual assessment of their personal circumstances. They also make complaints under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 (right to liberty and security), and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.

The Court decided to strike the application out of its list in so far as concerned all but the second and seventh applicants.”

In respect of the second and seventh applicants, the ECtHR concluded the following.

No violation of Article 3 was found on account of the conditions of their detention in Gradina Border Police Station, as the applicants’ detention was of a short period of time so that it did not reach the minimum threshold of severity.

The ECtHR found a violation of Article 3 on account of the manner of the applicants’ removal from Serbia to Bulgaria and the circumstances surrounding it and on account of Serbia’s failure to examine whether they would have access to an adequate asylum procedure in Bulgaria. The court made reference to the principles set out in Ilias and Ahmed.

In the present case, the applicants expressed their wish to apply for asylum in Serbia and were recognised as asylum-seekers by the Misdemeanour Court and served with asylum-intention certificates. They were nonetheless expelled without any legal procedure, in the absence of an assessment of whether the person would have access to an adequate asylum procedure in Bulgaria and about the adequacy of that procedure, and without conducting an assessment of their asylum claims on the merits, in violation of the State’s procedural obligations under Article 3 of the Convention.

The ECtHR also found a violation of Article 5(1) on account of the unlawful detention from 10.30 p.m. on 3 February 2017 until between 2.30 and 3 a.m. on 4 February 2017, a violation of Article 5(4) and no violation of Article 5(2).

Concerning the complaint under Article 4 of Protocol No. 4, the ECtHR referred to the principles concerning collective expulsions summarised in N.D. and N.T. v. Spain and reiterated that the decisive criterion is the absence of an individual examination of each individual in the group in a reasonable and objective manner.

Where individuals cross a land border in an unauthorised manner and are expelled summarily, it must be examined whether the State provided genuine and effective access to means of legal entry, in particular border procedures, to allow people to submit an application for international protection, and secondly, where such access was provided and the applicant did not make use of it, whether there were cogent reasons not to use it, based on objective facts for which the State was responsible.

In the present case, the applicants were not expelled summarily and they were brought before a court which acknowledged their asylum claims, ordered the applicants’ accommodation and the issuance of asylum-intention certificates that served as temporary residence permits. Their subsequent removal was unrelated to their unauthorised entry and the Constitutional Court already found that they were expelled without a prior individual examination, thus in violation of the prohibition of collective expulsion under Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.