CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 mai 2026

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2D3BC823 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Legal summary May 2026 J.B. v. Greece - 54796/16 Judgment 26.5.2026 [Section III] Article 13 Effective remedy Examination of a Syrian national’s asylum claim in the context of his potential return from Greece to Türkiye under the EU-Türkiye Statement of 18 March 2016: no violation Facts – The application concerned the return of a Syrian national from Greece to Türkiye under the EU-Türkiye Statement of 18   March 2016 which aimed at stopping the flow of irregular migration via Türkiye to Europe. According to the applicant he left Syria in April 2015 as he was in danger from the Islamic State due to his Armenian origin and Christian faith, and because the country was at war. He travelled through Lebanon to reach Türkiye, where he stayed for approximately a year, having been given temporary protection status. In May 2016 he was arrested in Lesvos by the Greek authorities of the Central Port Authority of Mytilene, having entered the country unlawfully. He expressed his wish to seek asylum in Greece. During his interview, he argued that he had been forced to conceal his Armenian ethnicity and Christian religion while in Türkiye and that he had left the country as he had felt it was not safe for him there since Armenia and Azerbaijan were at war and Türkiye supported Azerbaijan. The applicant’s claim for asylum was rejected on the grounds that Türkiye had been his “first country of asylum” or would be “a safe third country” for him. His appeal against that decision and the judicial proceedings he brought were unsuccessful. His application for annulment of the decision to expel him to Türkiye was also unsuccessful. Relying on Article   13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article   3, the applicant complained of deficiencies in the examination of his asylum claim by the Greek authorities and in the removal process. He also complained under Article   3 about the risk he might face if returned to Türkiye, including the risk of chain refoulement , as well as about the conditions of his detention in Mytilene police station while awaiting expulsion. Law – Article 3 (Expulsion): The applicant had in the meantime moved to France where he had been granted refugee status. The Court thus considered that it was no longer justified to continue the examination of this complaint (Article   37 §   1 (c)). Conclusion : struck out (unanimously). Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3: (1) The applicant’s victim status and whether he had an arguable claim for the purposes of Article   13   – The Court followed the approach taken in its case-law where a substantive claim had been declared inadmissible. More specifically, in deportation cases it had taken the view that loss of victim status in respect of alleged violations of Articles   2 and   3 because an applicant had no longer been exposed to the threat of deportation did not necessarily render that complaint non-arguable or deprive an applicant of his victim status for the purposes of Article   13. The fact that the present applicant’s substantive claim under Article   3 had been struck out of the list did not therefore necessarily exclude the operation of Article   13. The facts constituting the alleged violation of Article   13 in the present case had already materialised by the time the risk of the applicant’s removal had ceased to exist. Although the French authorities’ decision to grant the applicant asylum had removed the risk that he would be deported to Türkiye, that decision did not and could not acknowledge and redress his claim under Article   13 in conjunction with Article   3 in respect of Greece. In the circumstances, he could therefore still claim to be a victim in respect of that complaint. Furthermore, the applicant’s statements during his asylum interview and to the judicial authorities that he feared living in Türkiye due to his Armenian origin and Christian faith and the various reports he had filed were sufficient to conclude that he had an arguable claim under Article   3, engaging the respondent State’s obligation under Article   13 to provide an effective remedy for the examination of those fears through a procedure meeting the requirements of the latter   provision. (2) The alleged deficiencies in the examination of the applicant’s claim – The Court did not consider it necessary to embark on an analysis of the status of the EU-Türkiye Statement. It had to determine, in light of the facts of the case and the applicant’s complaints, whether the Greek authorities had taken the general information available on Türkiye appropriately into account; whether he had been given a sufficient opportunity to seek international protection in Greece and to explain his personal situation; and whether the Greek authorities had taken into consideration the allegation that the reception conditions for asylum seekers in Türkiye had been inadequate. The Court noted that the applicant’s asylum claim had been the subject of a multi‑layered examination by the Asylum Service, the Appeals Committee and the judicial authorities. The interview record showed that the applicant was given a genuine opportunity to set out his account and arguments; the questions asked had been suitable for the purpose of identifying whether Türkiye was a safe third country for the applicant; and the authorities had engaged with the substance of his submissions. He had been interviewed by competent and trained staff and had been given the information in the documents with the assistance of an interpreter who had served the documents on him. The fact that the initial decision rejecting the applicant’s claim contained standardised wording did not, in itself, indicate a failure to conduct an individualised assessment; the reasoning of the subsequent administrative and judicial decisions demonstrated that his personal circumstances, and the relevant country information about certain alleged risks and the specific risks he had alleged, had been duly considered on the basis of his replies. The authorities had, on their own motion, examined the conditions the applicant would face in Türkiye, consulting a wide range of reports, statistics and other objective material. At the judicial stage, the applicant had benefited from legal assistance and had been able to challenge the finding that Türkiye had been a safe third country for him. He had received a detailed reply to his arguments, including to the reports that he had produced before the domestic courts. As regards the assurances relied upon by the authorities, the Court observed that it had considered in the past the acceptability of guarantees of a more general nature in removal cases and had not excluded that an arrangement between two States on removal of persons seeking protection containing such general assurances might be acceptable under certain conditions. In the Court’s view, where the return of asylum seekers was governed not by ad hoc diplomatic undertakings but by a structured framework of cooperation between two States which were parties to the Convention, accompanied by clear and objectively verifiable conditions, the assessment of risk had to take account of that broader context. The principle that diplomatic assurances must be specific could not be applied mechanically in situations where the receiving State participated in an established, mutually agreed mechanism for the treatment of returnees. In such circumstances, general assurances embedded in the relevant agreement, and implemented through ongoing institutional cooperation, might suffice to dispel a real risk of treatment contrary to Article   3. The decisive question remained whether the assurances, viewed in light of the overall scheme and the material before the Court, offered a sufficiently reliable guarantee of protection against prohibited ill‑treatment. Where the evidence demonstrated that the agreed safeguards operated effectively in practice and were not undermined by systemic deficiencies, such general assurances might, in principle, be regarded as adequate. In any event, assurances were not in themselves sufficient to ensure adequate protection against the risk of ill‑treatment; there was an obligation to examine whether they provided, in their practical application, a sufficient guarantee that the applicant would be protected against the risk of ill-treatment. The Greek authorities had not relied on the Turkish authorities’ assurances of in isolation but had assessed them within the broader framework of the EU‑Türkiye Statement and in conjunction with further objective material, including statistical data and reports and letters from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees “UNHCR” and the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (“ECRE”). The reports had been assessed in relation to the applicant’s arguments concerning both the risk of refoulement and the treatment received by Syrians in Türkiye, including references to statistics and to the number of Syrians then living in Türkiye, as well as their reception conditions and the guarantees provided under the Turkish Temporary Protection Regulation. The Court took note of the documents referred to by the Greek authorities: a letter of 12 April 2016 from the Ambassador of Türkiye’s Permanent Delegation to the European Union, confirming that all Syrian nationals returned under the Statement would be granted temporary protection in accordance with the amended Temporary Protection Regulation, subject only to the exclusion clauses provided for in domestic and international law; a letter of 5   May 2016 from the Director‑General of the European Commission’s Directorate‑General for Migration and Home Affairs confirming that Türkiye had adopted the regulatory amendments required under the Statement, that assurances had been duly transmitted to the Greek authorities, and that Türkiye had undertaken to allow regular monitoring by the European Union and UNHCR, including access to removal centres; and lastly, a letter of 4   May 2016 from UNHCR to the Greek authorities, confirming that Syrian nationals returned from the Greek islands would, in principle, be eligible for temporary protection in Turkey irrespective of prior registration, and acknowledging the assurances provided by Turkey to the European Union concerning the enjoyment of temporary protection by such returnees. Taken together and viewed in light of the additional material examined by the domestic authorities, those elements provided a coherent and mutually reinforcing set of guarantees that the authorities could reasonably rely on. That distinguished the present case from H.T. v.   Germany and Greece in which the German authorities had removed the applicant to Greece based on an administrative arrangement that had not contained any provisions guaranteeing that asylum-seekers removed under that arrangement would, following their removal, have access to an effective asylum procedure in Greece in which the merits of their asylum claim would be assessed. In the present case, the domestic authorities could reasonably regard the above assurances and supporting information as sufficient to disprove the applicant’s allegations regarding a systematic practice of refoulement from Türkiye to Syria and dispel the risk of treatment contrary to Article   3. In light of the above, and in particular in view of the thoroughness of the domestic examination, the range of sources that had been consulted, the reasoned responses that had been provided to the applicant’s submissions, and the coherent set of assurances and monitoring mechanisms forming part of the EU-Türkiye Statement, the Court considered that the examination of applicant’s asylum claim had been sufficient to comply with the Convention standards. The applicant had had a wide range of remedies at his disposal not only in theory, but also in practice. Overall, he had benefitted from effective safeguards in the examination of his asylum claim which had enabled him to assert his fears of treatment contrary to Article   3 and had been capable of protecting him from being arbitrarily returned to Türkiye and, through chain refoulement , to his country of origin. He had been given an opportunity to rebut the presumption that Türkiye had been a safe third country for him; the Greek authorities had made an individual assessment of his situation, relying on the evidence that had been brought by the applicant, taking into account the general information available for Türkiye, the assurances that had been made in the context of the EU-Türkiye Statement and reports and letters of UNHCR and by the Special Representative of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe on migration and refugees. That conclusion dispensed the Court from examining the applicant’s allegations regarding the procedure on his removal. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). Article 3 (Conditions of detention pending expulsion): Lastly, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   3 on account of the applicant’s conditions of detention, pending his expulsion, for a period of one month and nineteen dates in Mytilene police station which had lacked the amenities required for prolonged periods of detention. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (See Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v.   France , 25389/05, 26   April 2007, Legal Summary ; Saadi v.   Italy , [GC], 37201/06, 28   February 2008, Legal Summary ; M.S.S. v.   Belgium and Greece , [GC], 30696/09, 21   January 2011, Legal Summary ; Othman (Abu Qatada) v.   the United Kingdom , 8139/09, 17   January 2012, Legal Summary ; I.M. v.   France, 9152/09, 2   February 2012 , Legal Summary ; M.A. v.   Cyprus , 41872/10, 23   July 2013, Legal Summary ; Ilias and Ahmed v.   Hungary , [GC], 47287/15, 21   November 2019, Legal Summary ; H.T. v.   Germany and Greece , 13337/19 , 15   October 2024)   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. To access legal summaries in English or French click here . For non-official translations into other languages click here .