003-7527062-10333968

WyrokETPCz2022-12-20

Analiza orzeczenia

Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.

Zagadnienie prawne

Czy postępowanie azylowe na Malcie, w tym ocena ryzyka dla dziennikarza w przypadku powrotu do Bangladeszu oraz dostęp do skutecznego środka odwoławczego, było zgodne z art. 3 i art. 13 Konwencji?

Ratio decidendi

Trybunał uznał, że maltańskie władze nie oceniły należycie roszczeń skarżącego dotyczących ryzyka prześladowania w Bangladeszu, zwłaszcza w kontekście jego działalności dziennikarskiej, co stanowiłoby naruszenie art. 3 w przypadku jego odesłania bez ponownej oceny. Ponadto, Trybunał stwierdził, że procedura azylowa była wadliwa, w szczególności w zakresie dostępu skarżącego do pomocy prawnej i opóźnień, co pozbawiło go skutecznego środka odwoławczego w rozumieniu art. 13 w związku z art. 3 Konwencji.

Stan faktyczny

Skarżący, S.H., obywatel Bangladeszu urodzony w 1999 r., przybył na Maltę łodzią we wrześniu 2019 r. i został natychmiast zatrzymany. Złożył wniosek o ochronę międzynarodową, twierdząc, że był dziennikarzem w Bangladeszu i był prześladowany po tym, jak donosił o nieprawidłowościach wyborczych w 2018 r. Jego wniosek o azyl został odrzucony. W sierpniu 2021 r. ETPCz zastosował środek tymczasowy na podstawie Reguły 39, wstrzymując jego wydalenie do Bangladeszu.

Rozstrzygnięcie

Trybunał stwierdza naruszenie art. 13 w związku z art. 3 Konwencji. Trybunał stwierdza naruszenie art. 3 Konwencji, jeśli skarżący zostanie odesłany do Bangladeszu bez ponownej oceny jego roszczeń. Trybunał zasądza 5 000 euro tytułem szkody niemajątkowej oraz 2 000 euro tytułem kosztów i wydatków.

Pełny tekst orzeczenia

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 397 (2022) 20.12.2022 Judgments and decisions of 20 December 2022 The European Court of Human Rights has today given notification in writing of five judgments1 and two decisions2: one Chamber judgment is summarised below; three separate press releases have been issued for Chamber judgments in the cases of Zemmour v. France (application no. 63539/19), Bakoyanni v. Greece (no. 31012/19), and Moraru and Marin v. Romania (nos. 53282/18 and 31428/20); one Committee judgment, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, and the two decisions can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release. The judgment summarised below is available only in English. S.H. v. Malta (application no. 37241/21) The applicant, Mr S.H., is a Bangladeshi national who was born in 1999 and lives in Msida (Malta). Mr S.H. arrived in Malta by boat in September 2019 and was immediately placed in detention. He lodged an application for international protection, submitting that he was a journalist in Bangladesh, who had been persecuted after he reported on electoral irregularities in the 2018 elections. The case concerns the procedure leading to the refusal of his asylum requests. His removal to Bangladesh was stayed in August 2021 when the European Court of Human Rights issued an urgent interim measure (under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court) to the Government of Malta. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr S.H. complains that the Maltese authorities failed to properly assess his claims, in particular, the risks that he, as a journalist, would face upon being returned to Bangladesh. He also alleges under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), taken in conjunction with Article 3, that the asylum procedure was deficient, in particular with regard to his access to legal counsel, delays and a failure to examine the merits of his case. Interim measure (Rule 39 of the Rules of Court): still in force until the present judgment becomes final or until further notice Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 Violation of Article 3 – should the applicant be returned to Bangladesh without a fresh assessment of his claim Just satisfaction: non-pecuniary damage: 5,000 euros (EUR) Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final. Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution. Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final. costs and expenses: EUR 2,000 This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter @ECHR_CEDH. Press contacts [email protected] | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08 We would encourage journalists to send their enquiries via email. Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel.: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Denis Lambert (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 41 09) Inci Ertekin (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 55 30) Neil Connolly (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 48 05) Jane Swift (tel.: + 33 3 88 41 29 04) The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. 2