Source: https://www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/en/content/ecthr-communicated-cases-against-russia-greece-france-denmark-and-switzerland
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 14:23:46+00:00

Document:
Sharkar v. Greece (no. 15641/12): the case concerns a Bangladeshi national who, for the purposes of introducing a request for a residence permit, was required to withdraw his asylum application lodged two years earlier. His request for a residence permit was rejected and he lived without a residence permit (thus, without access to social security, healthcare and labour market) until 2011, when his appeal was accepted by a Greek Court. The ECtHR asked the parties questions under Article 8 ECHR regarding the impact for his private life of his lack of permit during that period.
Mohammad v. Denmark (no. 16711/15): the applicant is an Algerian national who reached Denmark at the age of 14. After his request for asylum was rejected, he was granted a residence permit as an unaccompanied minor. The applicant had problems with drug abuse and was convicted four times for different crimes. Following a High Court decision in 2014, he was returned from Denmark to Algeria. He complains that his expulsion led to a violation of his rights under Article 8 ECHR.
Khan v. France (no. 12267/16): the case concerns an Afghan unaccompanied minor who lived in the makeshift camp in Calais. He complains under Article 3, 6 and 13 that the national authorities did not comply with a court order that he had to be provisionally placed in a social aid reception facility. The applicant also raises alleged violations of Article 8 ECHR and Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR (right to property).
Allaa Kaak and others v. Greece (no. 34215/16): the complaints are brought by 51 applicants of different nationalities, under Article 3 ECHR (conditions at the Greek hotspots of Vial and Souda in Chios) and Article 5 §§ 1, 2 and 4 (detention in the hotspots).
Miran v. Russia (no. 12030/16): the case concerns an Iraqi applicant who had been granted refugee status in Syria and who, in 2011, moved to Russia for study purposes. Following the expiry of his permit, he repeatedly applied for refugee status but his applications were not accepted for consideration “due to lack of quota for granting asylum” in the region. The applicant is currently held pending expulsion due to his irregular situation in Russia. He complains under Article 5 §§ 1 (f) and 4 that his detention has been too long and that Russian law does not provide for a judicial review of such detention.
A.A. v. Switzerland (32218/17): the applicant is an Afghan national who complains that his return from Switzerland to Afghanistan would violate his rights under Article 3 ECHR due to his conversion to Christianity.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.