Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 152
May 2012
Labsi v. Slovakia - 33809/08
Judgment 15.5.2012
Article 34
Hinder the exercise of the right of petition
Failure to comply with interim measure indicated by Court on account of real risk of torture: violation
Facts – The applicant, an Algerian national, married a Slovak national in London in 2001. He was later extradited to France on terrorism related charges and given a five-year prison sentence. Following his release, he travelled to Slovakia, where he made three unsuccessful attempts to obtain asylum. In 2006 the Slovakian immigration authorities ordered his expulsion and banned him from re-entering the country for ten years. The Algerian authorities subsequently requested his extradition to Algeria where in 2005 he had been sentenced in his absence to life imprisonment for membership of a terrorist organisation and forgery. In 2008 the Slovak Supreme Court ruled that the applicant could not be extradited to Algeria owing to the risk that he would be subjected to torture and the European Court issued an interim measure under Rule 39 of its Rules requiring the Slovak authorities not to extradite him. In March 2010 the Supreme Court upheld the immigration authorities’ original decision in 2006 to expel the applicant after finding that he represented a safety risk in Slovakia on account of his involvement in terrorism. On being informed of this situation, the European Court specifically informed the Slovak Government that the Rule 39 interim measure remained in force pending a possible constitutional complaint by the applicant. The applicant was nevertheless expelled to Algeria three days later.
Law – Article 3: The assurances the Slovak Government had received from the Algerian authorities were of a general nature and had to be considered in the light of the information available on the human-rights situation obtaining in Algeria. From the material before the Court – including reports from international bodies and the findings of the Slovakian authorities themselves – it was clear that, at the time of his expulsion, there had been substantial grounds for believing that the applicant faced a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 in Algeria. The argument that the expulsion had nevertheless been justified because he represented a security risk could not be accepted because of the absolute nature of the guarantee under Article 3. The applicant was reported to have been detained by Algerian Intelligence for twelve days following his return to Algeria and there had been no follow-up to the request for a visit by a Slovak official to check compliance with the Algerian authorities’ assurances as regards his treatment. The guarantees that he would be protected against the risk of ill-treatment had thus been insufficient.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 13: The applicant’s expulsion to Algeria just one working day after he was served with the Supreme Court’s judgment of March 2010 had deprived him of an effective remedy as it had prevented him from seeking redress through a constitutional complaint since the time for lodging a complaint only started to run from the date of the final effect of the impugned decision and the complaint had to be accompanied by the decision.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 34: The level of protection the Court was able to afford the rights the applicant was asserting under Article 3 had been irreversibly reduced by his expulsion to Algeria. The expulsion had occurred prior to the exchange of the parties’ observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. The applicant’s representative had lost contact with him since his expulsion and, as a result, the gathering of evidence in support of the applicant’s allegations had proved more complex. The Court had thus been prevented by the applicant’s expulsion from conducting a proper examination of his complaints in accordance with its settled practice in similar cases. It had further been prevented from protecting the applicant against a real risk of ill-treatment. The applicant had thus been hindered in the effective exercise of his right of individual application.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
(See also Mannai v. Italy, no. 9961/10, 27 March 2012, Information Note no. 150)
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy