Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Art 3 • Expulsion • Refusal of border guards to receive asylum applications and summary removal to a third country, with a risk of refoulement to and ill-treatment in the country of origin • Systemic practice of misrepresenting statements given by asylum-seekers • Lack of a proper investigation into the reasons for which the applicants sought entry • State�s obligation to ensure the applicants� safety, in particular by allowing them to remain within its jurisdiction, pending examination of their application for international protection
Art 4 P4 • Collective expulsion of aliens • Wider state policy of refusing entry to foreigners coming from Belarus • Applicants� attempt to cross a border in a legal manner, using an official checkpoint and subjecting themselves to border checks
Art 34 • Hinder the exercise of the right of application • Non-compliance or delayed compliance with interim measures under Rule 39
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 � 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.