CASE OF KHLAIFIA AND OTHERS v. ITALY
Hearing: Khlaifia and Others v. Italy (no. 16483/12) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2016-06-22 00:00:00)
Application no.: 16483/12
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2015-09-01 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:0901JUD001648312
Respondent state: ITA
Articles of the Convention: 3;5;5-1;5-1-f;5-2;5-4;13;13+3;13+P4-4;35;41;P4-4
Judges: András Sajó;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano
Represented by: MASERA L.M. ; ZIRULIA S.
Issue: Articles 10 § 2 (b) and 14 of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998
Strasbourg case-law cited: A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 3455/05, §§ 162-163, ECHR 2009;Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey, no 30471/08, 22 September 2009;Adam and Others v. Germany (dec.), no 290/03, 1 September 2005;Allan v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no 48539/99, 28 August 2001;Alver v. Estonia, no 64812/01, § 50, 8 November 2005;Amuur v. France, 25 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III;Andrei Frolov v. Russia, no 205/02, §§ 47-49, 29 March 2007;Athary v. Turkey, no 50372/09, § 36, 11 December 2012;Babushkin v. Russia, no 67253/01, § 44, 18 October 2007;Baranowski v. Poland, no 28358/95, ECHR 2000-III;Belevitskiy v. Russia, no 72967/01, §§ 73-79, 1 March 2007;Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, Reports 1996-V;Čonka v. Belgium, no 51564/99, §§ 61-63, ECHR 2002-I;Dbouba v. Turkey, no 15916/09, § 54, 13 July 2010;De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, 22 May 1984, § 60, Series A no 77;De Souza Ribeiro v. France [GC], no 22689/07, § 82, ECHR 2012;Dhahbi v. Italy, no 17120/09, § 24, 8 April 2014;Dougoz v. Greece, nº 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II;E. v. Norway, 29 August 1990, § 50, Series A no 181-A;Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, 30 August 1990, § 40, Series A no 182;G.C. v. Italy, no 73869/10, § 36, 22 April 2014;Giulia Manzoni v. Italy, 1 July 1997, § 25, Reports 1997-IV;Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, §§ 92-93, Series A no 39;Herczegfalvy v. Austria, 24 September 1992, § 63, Series A no 244;Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy [GC], no 27765/09, § 183, ECHR 2012;Hutchison Reid v. the United Kingdom, no 50272/99, § 79, ECHR 2003-IV;Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, Series A no 25;István Gábor Kovács v. Hungary, no 15707/10, § 26, 17 January 2012;Ječius v. Lithuania, no 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX;Kadikis v. Latvia, no 62393/00, § 55, 4 May 2006;Kalashnikov v. Russia, no 47095/99, § 102, ECHR 2002-VI;Kantyrev v. Russia, no 37213/02, §§ 50-51, 21 June 2007;Karalevičius v. Lithuania, no 53254/99, § 39, 7 April 2005;Kehayov v. Bulgaria, no 41035/98, § 64, 18 January 2005;Khudoyorov v. Russia, no 6847/02, §§ 106-107, ECHR 2005-X (extracts);Kudła v. Poland [GC], no 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI;L.M. v. Slovenia, no 32863/05, § 121, 12 June 2014;Labita v. Italy [GC], no 26772/95, § 121, ECHR 2000-IV;M.S. v. Belgium, no 50012/08, § 122, 31 January 2012;M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no 30696/09, § 388, ECHR 2011;Mahdid and Haddar v. Austria (dec.), no 74762/01, 8 December 2005;Moghaddas v. Turkey, no 46134/08, § 46, 15 February 2011;Moiseyev v. Russia, no 62936/00, 9 October 2008;Mooren v. Germany [GC], no 11364/03, § 76, 9 July 2009;Mouisel v. France, no 67263/01, § 37, ECHR 2002-IX;Musaev v. Turkey, no 72754/11, 21 October 2014;N.C. v. Italy [GC], no 24952/94, § 44, ECHR 2002-X;Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no 656/06, § 77, 11 October 2007;Naumenko v. Ukraine, no 42023/98, § 108, 10 February 2004;Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no 31195/96, § 69, ECHR 1999-II;Novoselov v. Russia, no 66460/01, §§ 32 and 40-43, 2 June 2005;Peers v. Greece, no 28524/95, §§ 68 and 74, ECHR 2001-III;Price v. the United Kingdom, no 33394/96, § 24, ECHR 2001-VII;Rahimi v. Greece, no 8687/08, § 60, 5 April 2011;Raninen v. Finland, 16 December 1997, § 55, Reports 1997-VIII;Riad and Idiab v. Belgium, nos. 29787/03 and 29810/03, § 100, 24 January 2008;Ruiz Rivera v. Switzerland, no 8300/06, § 47, 18 February 2014;S.D. v. Greece, no 53541/07, § 76, 11 June 2009;Saadi v. Italy [GC], no 37201/06, § 131, ECHR 2008;Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 13229/03, § 43, ECHR 2008;Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no 36378/02, ECHR 2005 III;Shtukaturov v. Russia, no 44009/05, § 123, ECHR 2008;Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 88, Series A no 161;Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no 36760/06, ECHR 2012;Sulejmanovic v. Italy, no 22635/03, § 43, 16 July 2009;Vachev v. Bulgaria, no 42987/98, § 71, ECHR 2004-VIII;Van der Leer v. the Netherlands, 21 February 1990, § 28, Series A no 170-A;Velinov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no 16880/08, § 49, 19 September 2013;Vlasov v. Russia, no 78146/01, § 84, 12 June 2008;Weeks v. the United Kingdom, 2 March 1987, § 61, Series A no 114;Witold Litwa v. Poland, no 26629/95, § 78, ECHR 2000-III
Conclusion: Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-2 - Information on reasons for arrest;Prompt information);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens-{general} (Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Prohibition of torture);Violation of Article 13+P4-4 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens-{general};Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: TRUE