European Court of Human Rights
23 February 2012
Facts
The applicants, eleven Somali nationals and thirteen Eritrean nationals, were part of a group of about two hundred people who left Libya aboard three vessels to reach the Italian coast. The vessels were intercepted by the Italian authorities, the applicants were transferred onto Italian military ships and returned to Tripoli. The applicants alleged that the Italian authorities did not inform them of their destination and took no steps to identify them. On arrival to Tripoli, the applicants were handed over to the Libyan authorities, to which they objected.
Complaint
The applicants alleged that their transfer to Libya by the Italian authorities had violated Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention (prohibition of collective expulsion). They also complained of violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).
Court’s ruling
The Court first found that the applicants were within the jurisdiction of Italy, since the vessel was flying the Italian flag and the Italian authorities exercised control over the applicants. Then, the Court noted that two different aspects of Article 3 need to be assessed: firstly, the risk that the applicants would suffer inhuman and degrading treatment in Libya; and secondly, the danger of being returned to their countries of origin. Regarding the first issue, the Court found that the Italian authorities knew or should have known that the applicants would be at risk of inhuman and degrading treatment in Libya, as it was demonstrated by numerous reports. The Court also stressed that the fact that the applicants had failed to expressly request asylum did not exempt Italy from fulfilling its obligations under Article 3. Regarding the second issue, the Court considered that the Italian authorities knew or should have known that there were insufficient guarantees protecting the applicants from the risk of being arbitrarily returned to their countries of origin from Libya. The Court reiterated the principle that it is the responsibility of the State carrying out the return to prevent indirect refoulement. Accordingly, the Court found a violation of Article 3 on both accounts. The Court also found a violation of the prohibition of collective expulsion (Article 4 of Protocol No. 4), as well as the right to an effective remedy (Article 13).