Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Published in:
Introduction: Perspectives on the Protective Potential of Interim Measures in Human Rights Cases and the Legitimacy of Their Use Read chapter Read first chapter

2021 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

7. Urgency in Expulsion Cases Before the European Court of Human Rights and the UN-Committees: A Bird’s Eye View

Author : Karin Zwaan

Published in: Urgency and Human Rights

Publisher: T.M.C. Asser Press

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the issue of urgency in expulsion cases. It analyses case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), as well as the UN Human Rights Committee (HRCtee), the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the UN Committee against Torture (CAT). The question is addressed how these bodies deal with evidentiary matters and how, within the time-constraints, they deal with the requirements of elaboration and reasoning. It is a bird’s eye view because a view from a very high place allows you to see a large area, and urgency in expulsion cases also encompasses a large number of judgments and views. Also—from a practitioner’s perspective—the choice of forum will be dealt with. This chapter—as well as the entire book—takes a thematic, rather than a system by system approach to urgency in human rights litigation. It deals with the overall theme of legitimacy and protective potential of the tool of interim measures in human rights cases. To discuss the above-mentioned topics, a case study on Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) will give insight into all these different aspects of urgency, evidentiary matters, choice of forum and the protective potential of interim measures in expulsion cases.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
previous chapter The Legitimacy of Interim Measures from the Perspective of a State: The Example of Canada
next chapter Irreparable Harm in the Ukraine Conflict: Protection Gaps and Interim Measures
Footnotes
1
See for a comparison between the HRCtee and the ECtHR Keller and Marti 2013.
 
2
Rule 39: 1. The Chamber or, where appropriate, the President of the Section or a duty judge appointed pursuant to para 4 of this Rule may, at the request of a party or of any other person concerned, or of their own motion, indicate to the parties any interim measure which they consider should be adopted in the interests of the parties or of the proper conduct of the proceedings. 2. Where it is considered appropriate, immediate notice of the measure adopted in a particular case may be given to the [Council of Europe] Committee of Ministers. 3. The Chamber or, where appropriate, the President of the Section or a duty judge appointed pursuant to para 4 of this Rule may request information from the parties on any matter connected with the implementation of any interim measure indicated. 4. The President of the Court may appoint Vice-Presidents of Sections as duty judges to decide on requests for interim measures.
 
3
All data retrieved from echr.coe.int, including the specific Factsheets on e.g. Interim Measures and the ECtHR case-law database HUDOC; https://​hudoc.​echr.​coe.​int.
 
4
See Chap. 9 (Leach) of this volume on the application of interim measures before the ECtHR in situations other than removal cases.
 
5
Three ECtHR Grand Chamber judgments (Mamatkulov and Askarov v Turkey, 4 February 2005 App nos 46827/99 and 46951/99; Paladi v the Republic of Moldova 10 March 2009, App no 39806/05; M.A. v France, 1 February 2018, App no 9373/15) have given the Court an opportunity to clarify this obligation, based particularly on Article 34 ECHR (individual applications).
 
6
Rieter 2010, p. 131. See also Marti 2019.
 
7
On the assessment of risk, see Rieter 2010, pp. 817–832.
 
8
ECtHR, NA v the United Kingdom, Judgment, 17 July 2008, App no 25904/07.
 
9
See also Rieter 2010, pp. 266–307.
 
10
Topic list on the basis of HUDOC (search within Judgments, Article 3 ECHR, Rule 39, 276 hits, adding expulsion 123 hits) and the Fact Sheet Interim Measures. Also HUDOC indicates the cases that are to be seen as key cases. The information acquired was supplemented with information from the—not freely accessible—Dutch database Vluchtweb. For this bird’s eye view the focus was on judgments. See on the supervision of the execution of judgments Glas 2019.
 
11
See also Keller and Marti 2015, para 27. See also Føllesdal 2013.
 
12
Out of the 123 hits, in 61 of the judgments no violation of Article 3 was found.
 
13
ECtHR, F.H. v. Sweden, Judgment, 20 January 2009, App no 32621/06.
 
14
See recently ECtHR, S.A. v. The Netherlands, Judgment, 2 June 2020, App no 49773/15.
 
15
ECtHR, Y.P. and L.P. v. France, Judgment, 1 September 2010, App no 32476/06.
 
16
ECtHR, M.A. v. Switzerland, Judgment, 18 November 2014, App no 52589/13.
 
17
ECtHR, F.G. v. Sweden, Judgment GC, 23 March 2016, App no 43611/11.
 
18
See recently ECtHR, M.S. v. Slovakia and Ukraine, Judgment, 11 June 2020, App no 17189/11.
 
19
ECtHR, A.S.N. a.o. v The Netherlands, Judgment, 25 February 2020, App no 68377/17 530/18, paras 119 and 120.
 
20
ECtHR, W.H. v. Sweden, Judgment GC, 8 April 2015, App no 49341/10.
 
21
ECtHR, Abdollahi v Turkey, Decision, 3 November 2009, App no 23980/08.
 
22
ECtHR, M.E. v Sweden, Judgment GC, 8 April 2015, App no 71398/12.
 
23
ECtHR, A.S.B. v the Netherlands, Decision, 10 July 2012 App no 4854/12.
 
24
See also the case of a homosexual Iranian man against Finland, ECtHR, A.E. v. Finland, Decision, 22 September 2015, App no 30953/11.
 
25
ECtHR, Jabari v Turkey, Judgment, 11 July 2000, App no 40035/98.
 
26
See also ECtHR, H.N. v the Netherlands, Decision, 31 March 2015, App No 20651/11 on family vengeance.
 
27
ECtHR, Sow v Belgium, Judgment, 19 January 2016, App no 27081/13.
 
28
ECtHR, Abraham Lunguli v Sweden, Decision, 1 July 2003, App no 33692/00.
 
29
ECtHR, Collins and Akaziebie v Sweden, Decision, 8 March 2007, App no 23944/05.
 
30
ECtHR, N. v Sweden, Judgment, 20 July 2010, App no 23505/09.
 
31
ECtHR, Hossein Kheel, Decision, 16 December 2008, App no 34583/08.
 
32
ECtHR, M. v. the United Kingdom, Decision, 1 December 2009, App no 16081/08.
 
33
ECtHR, N. v. the United Kingdom, Judgment GC, 27 May 2008, App no 26565/05, para 51.
 
34
ECtHR, D. v. the United Kingdom, Judgment, 2 May 1997, App no 30240/96.
 
35
ECtHR, Paposhvili v. Belgium, Judgment GC, 13 December 2016, App no 41738/10.
 
36
For more information visit https://​www.​ohchr.​org/​EN/​pages/​home.​aspx; all information regarding the UN-Committees and the content of their views were retrieved from this website. We are aware that from 2012 on CAT is issuing decisions instead of views, but for purposes of this book we are using the term view for all Committees alike.
 
37
On CAT, interim measures and the position of Canada, see Chap. 6 (Harrington) in this volume.
 
38
See Chap. 6 (Harrington) in this volume. She mentions the ICCPR and CAT.
 
39
CAT, General Comment No 4 (2017) on the implementation of Article 3 of the Convention in the context of Article 22, CAT/C/GC/4 (2018). HRC, General Comment No 33 (2009), CCPR/C/GC/33, para 19. See also HRC General Comment No 31 (2004), CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 1326.
 
40
CAT, General Comment No 4 (2017), para 36. See for cases where this good faith was breached HRCtee, Ahani v Canada, View, 15 June 2002, Comm No 1051/2002, CCPR/C/80/D/1051/2002; CAT, Villamar v Canada, View, 25 November 2004, Comm No 163/2000, CAT/C/33/D/1 63/2000; CAT, Adel Tebourski v France, View, 11 May 2007, Comm No 300/2006, CAT/C/38/D/300/2006; CAT, Nadeem Ahmad Dar v Norway, View, 16 May 2007, Comm No 249/2004, CAT/C/38/D/249/2004.
 
41
Naldi 2004; McLachlan 2005.
 
42
Article 26 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. See further Chap. 4 (Pillay).
 
43
Rieter 2010, p. 131.
 
44
Database https://​juris.​ohchr.​org/​ (issue: interim measure, adopted views by CAT, CEDAW, CRC, CCPR, 122 hits). The information acquired was supplemented with information from the—not freely accessible—Dutch database Vluchtweb. In the context of this bird’s eye view, views were examined, but not other decisions.
 
45
Other formal criterions for admissibility of the individual complaint will have to be taken into account as well, like is the complainant (or the person on whose behalf the complaint is brought) a victim of the alleged violation? Is the complaint compatible with the provisions of the treaty invoked? Has the same matter been submitted to another international body? Is the complaint an abuse of the procedure?
 
46
CAT, X. v Switzerland, View, 28 April 1997, Comm No 27/1995, CAT/C/18/D/27/1995.
 
47
CAT, X. v Switzerland, View, 28 April 1997, Comm No 27/1995, CAT/C/18/D/27/1995, para 5.1.
 
48
CAT, J.A.G.V. v. Sweden, View, 18 November 2003, Comm No 215/2002, CAT/C/31/D/215/2002.
 
49
HRCtee, Q.A. v. Sweden, View, 30 October 2019, Comm No 3070/2017, CCPR/C/127/3070/2017. Since 2012 CAT uses the term Decisions instead of Views. We will be using Views.
 
50
See also CAT, S.S.E. v Australia, View, 25 May 1999, Comm No 120/1998, CAT/C/22/D/120/1998, with regard to Somalia.
 
51
CAT, Agiza v Sweden, View, 20 May 2005, Comm No 233/2003, CAT/C/34/D/233/2003.
 
52
CAT, Agiza v Sweden, View, 20 May 2005, Comm No 233/2003, CAT/C/34/D/233/2003, para 13.9.
 
53
CAT, Attia v Sweden, View, 24 November 2003, Comm No 199/2002, CAT/C/31/D/199/2002.
 
54
HRCtee, A.E. v Sweden, View, 13 March 2020, No 3300/2019, CCPR/C/128/D/3300/2019.
 
55
CEDAW, R.S.A.A. v Denmark, View, 15 July 2019, Comm No 86/2015, CEDAW/C/73/D/86/2015.
 
56
CEDAW, R.S.A.A. v Denmark, View, 15 July 2019, Comm No 86/2015, CEDAW/C/73/D/86/2015, para 8.5.
 
57
CRC, I.A.M. v Denmark, View, 25 January 2018, Comm No 3/2016, CRC/C/77/D/3/2016.
 
58
HRCtee, Kaba v Canada, View, 25 March 2010, Comm No 1465/2006, CCPR/C/98/D/1465/2006.
 
59
HRCtee, C. v Australia, View, 13 November 2002, Comm No 900/1999, CCPR/C/76/D/900/1999.
 
60
HRCtee, D.T. v Canada, View, 4 August 2011, Comm No 2081/2011, CCPR/C/117/D/2081/2011.
 
61
See e.g. ICJ Order for provisional measures in Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v Russian Federation), 19 April 2017, para 99. See also Miles 2013, p. 672.
 
62
UNHCR 2013, p. 2. See also UNGeneralAssembly, Resolution “Intensifying global efforts for the elimination of female genital mutilations”, sixty-seventh session, 16 November 2012, A/C.3/67/L.21/Rev.1.
 
63
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Report on Gender-Related Claims for Asylum, doc 12350, 26 July 2010.
 
64
See on the case law of the ECtHR on this topic Middelburg and Balta 2016. See also Wikholm et al. 2020.
 
65
Case law (judgments and views) from databases HUDOC and OHCHR jurisprudence (FGM gives 12 HUDOC hits and 22 OHCHR hits), supplemented with information from the—not freely accessible—Dutch database Vluchtweb. 19 cases were looked into in more detail (5 ECtHR, 9 CAT, 3 CEDAW, 1 CRC, 1 HRCtee).
 
66
ECtHR, Sow v Belgium, Judgment, 19 January 2016, App no 27081/13 and CAT, FB v the Netherlands, View, 15 December 2015, Comm No 613/2014, CAT/C/56/D/613/2014.
 
67
See for CAT, General Comment No 2, 2007, para 18 on FGM.
 
68
CEDAW, General Recommendation No 14, 1990, UN Doc A/45/38.
 
69
ECtHR, Abraham Lunguli v Sweden, Decision, 1 July 2003, App no 33692/00 (Tanzania).
 
70
See e.g. ECtHR, Izevbekhai v Ireland, Decision, 17 May 2011, App No 43408/08 (Nigeria), para 73.
 
71
ECtHR, Collins and Akaziebie v Sweden, Decision, 8 March 2007, App No 23944/05 (Nigeria). The same line of reasoning is to be found in ECtHR, Izevbekhai v Ireland, Decision, 17 May 2011, App No 43408/08 (Nigeria); ECtHR, Omeredo v Austria, Decision, 20 September 2011, App No 8969/10 (Nigeria).
 
72
ECtHR, X. v The Netherlands, Interim Measure, 14 June 2012, App No 404/11 (Guinee).
 
73
HRCtee, Kaba v Canada, View, 25 March 2010, Comm No 1465/2006, CCPR/C/98/D/1465/2006 (Guinee).
 
74
HRCtee, Kaba v Canada, View, 25 March 2010, Comm No 1465/2006, CCPR/C/98/D/1465/2006 (Guinee), para 10.1.
 
75
CEDAW, M.N.N. v Denmark, Decision, 15 July 2013, Comm No 33/2011, CEDAW/C/55/D/33/2011 (Uganda).
 
76
CEDAW, General Recommendation No. 19: Violence against women, 1992.
 
77
CEDAW, M.N.N. v Denmark, Decision, 15 July 2013, Comm No 33/2011, CEDAW/C/55/D/33/2011 (Uganda), para 8.8.
 
78
Comparable outcomes in CEDAW, S.F.A. v Denmark, Decision, 26 February 2018, Comm No 85/2015, CEDAW/C/69/D/85/2015 (Somalia); CEDAW, S.A.O. v Denmark, Decision, 29 October 2018, Comm No 101/2016, CEDAW/C/71/D/101/2016 (Somalia). Only in these two CEDAW cases no interim measures were requested.
 
79
CAT, F.B. v The Netherlands, View, 20 November 2015, App No 613/2014, CAT/C/56/D/613/2014 (Guinee).
 
80
CAT, F.B. v The Netherlands, View, 20 November 2015, App No 613/2014, CAT/C/56/D/613/2014 (Guinee), para 8.3.
 
81
ECtHR, Sow v Belgium, Judgment, 19 January 2016, App No 27081/13 (Guinee).
 
82
ECtHR, R.B.A.B. a.o. v The Netherlands, 7 June 2016, App No 7211/06 (Sudan).
 
83
ECtHR, R.B.A.B. a.o. v The Netherlands, 7 June 2016, App No 7211/06 (Sudan) para 54.
 
84
See also ECtHR, R.D. v France, Judgment, 16 September 2016, App No 34648/14 (Guinee).
 
85
CAT, R.O. v. Sweden, Decision, 18 November 2016, Comm No 644/2014, CAT/C/59/D/644/2014 (Nigeria).
 
86
CRC, I.A.M. v. Denmark, View, 25 January 2018, Comm No 003/2016, CRC/C/77/D/3/2016 (Somalia).
 
87
CRC, I.A.M. v. Denmark, View, 25 January 2018, Comm No 003/2016, CRC/C/77/D/3/2016 (Somalia), para 11.3.
 
88
CRC, I.A.M. v. Denmark, View, 25 January 2018, Comm No 003/2016, CRC/C/77/D/3/2016 (Somalia), para 11.9.
 
89
CAT, K. and K. v. The Netherlands, Decision, 3 May 2019, Comm No 760/2016, CAT/C/66/D/760/2016 (Sierra Leone).
 
90
CAT, M.J.S. v. The Netherlands, View, 3 May 2019, Comm No 757/2016, CAT/C/66/D/757/2016 (Ivory Coast).
 
91
CAT, M.J.S. v. The Netherlands, View, 3 May 2019, Comm No 757/2016, CAT/C/66/D/757/2016 (Ivory Coast), para 8.7.
 
92
See also Middelburg and Balta 2016, p. 441. A link may be found in ECtHR, Abraham Lunguli v Sweden, Decision, 1 July 2003, App no 33692/00; ECtHR , Murama v. The Netherlands, Interim Measure, 14 June 2012, No 404/11: ECtHR, Soumah v The Netherlands, Decision, 15 December 2017, App No 61452/15 (Guinee); CAT, K. and K. v. The Netherlands, Decision, 3 May 2019, Comm No 760/2016, CAT/C/66/D/760/2016.
 
93
Keller and Marti 2013.
 
94
See Chap. 6 (Harrington) in this Volume.
 
95
See e.g. CAT, A.R.A. v. Sweden, View, 1 May 2007, Comm No 305/2006, CAT/C/38/D/305/2006; CAT, M.J.S. v The Netherlands, View, 3 May 2019, Comm No 757/2016, CAT/C/66/D/757/2016.
 
Literature
Føllesdal A (2013) The Legitimacy Deficits of the Human Rights Judiciary: Elements and Implications of a Normative Theory. Theoretical Inquiries in Law 14:339
Glas L (2019) The European Court of Human Rights supervising the execution of its judgments. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 37(3):228–244
Keller H, Marti C (2013) Interim Relief Compared: Use of Interim Measures by the UN Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights. ZaöRV 73:325–372
Keller H, Marti C (2015) Reconceptualizing Implementation: The Judicialization of the Execution of the European Court of Human Rights’ Judgments. European Journal of International Law 26(4):829–850
Marti C (2019) Provisional measures: European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). In: Ruiz Fabri H (ed) Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Procedural Law. Oxford University Press OPIL
McLachlan C (2005) The Continuing Controversy over Provisional Measures in International Disputes. International Law FORUM du Droit International 7:5–15
Middelburg A, Balta A (2016) Female genital mutilation/cutting as a ground for asylum in Europe. Int J Refugee Law 28(3):416–52
Miles CA (2013) The Origins of the Law of Provisional Measures before International Courts and Tribunals. Zeitschrift für Ausländisches Öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, pp. 615–672
Naldi G (2004) Interim measures in the UN Human Rights Committee. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, April 2004, 53:445–454
Rieter E (2010) Preventing Irreparable Harm – Provisional Measures in International Human Rights Adjudication. Intersentia, Antwerp
UNHCR (2009) Protection Policy and Legal Advice Section Division of International Protection Services Geneva, Guidance Note on Refugee Claims relating to Female Genital Mutilation
UNHCR (2013) Too Much Pain. Female Genital Mutilation and Asylum in the European Union
Wikholm K, Mishori M, Ottenheimer D, Korostyshevskiy V, Reingold R, Wikholm C, Hampton K (2020) Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting as Grounds for Asylum Requests in the US: An Analysis of More than 100 Cases. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health 22:675–681
Metadata
Title
Urgency in Expulsion Cases Before the European Court of Human Rights and the UN-Committees: A Bird’s Eye View
Author
Karin Zwaan
Copyright Year
2021
Publisher
T.M.C. Asser Press
Book
Urgency and Human Rights

Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-414-3

Electronic ISBN: 978-94-6265-415-0

Copyright Year: 2021

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-415-0_7