In its judgment of 26.01.2023 on Application no. 60990/14, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) condemned Greece for violation of Article 3 of the ECHR, in the case of the Turkish refugee B.Y., who complained that he was forcibly abducted from the centre of Athens, in front of dozens of surprised citizens, on 30 May 2013, by assailants in a car with special licensed plates (belonging to the Greek police) and was taken under a hood straight to Turkey, with the involvement, according to his complaint, of the Turkish authorities, by whom he was arrested.
In the above judgment, the Court condemned Greece for breach of the obligation to carry out an effective investigation into any allegation of torture or inhuman and degrading treatment, under Article 3 of the ECHR, which formed the basis of the applicant's complaints, who, following his forced return to Turkey, was arrested and imprisoned on charges of belonging to a criminal organization and persecuted for his political beliefs.
In particular, the Court, taking into account, first, the fact that a kidnapping took place from a car with special licensed plates (belonging to the Greek state) and the fact that the Greek authorities themselves confirmed, in a document, that the plates belonged to the Greek Anti-Terrorist Unit, found that no proper and effective investigation had been carried out to investigate the applicant's allegations concerning the alleged incident, no police officer was ever examined by the Greek investigating authorities, who took no action whatsoever to investigate who were the persons involved in the abduction and shelved the case on the archive of unknown perpetrators, in breach of their obligations under Article 3 of the ECHR.
The Court, recognizing that the alleged incident unquestionably involved a vehicle of the Greek Police, unanimously found a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR as regards its procedural aspect and ordered the Greek Government to pay compensation to the applicant as just satisfaction for the above violation.
The ECtHR, by a vote of four, including the Greek judge, to three, did not uphold the plea of violation of Article 3 as regards its substantive part, because, despite the abundance of evidence submitted, the majority of the Court maintained reservations and ultimately concluded that it was impossible to admit the applicant's presence in Greece during the period in question. It should be noted that the Greek authorities argued that his presence in Greece was not proven because B.Y. had not been officially registered as an asylum seeker. The Court notes, however, that that failure to prove the applicant’s presence in Greece stems to a large extent from the failure of the national authorities to carry out the thorough and effective investigation which they were required to carry out and to provide the necessary evidence.
On the contrary, the three Members of the Court ruled on this point in a strong joint minority opinion and held that Greece should have been convicted on the substantive part of the violation of Article 3 ECHR as well, since a large amount of evidence shows the applicant's previous presence in Greece. They note in particular that, in view of the systemic deficiencies in the asylum system at the time of the events, the fact that the applicant had not formally lodged an asylum application is not sufficient to call into question his presence in Greece. On the contrary, they note that all the evidence, as well as the testimonies of the applicant's attempts to apply for asylum, prove that he was the abducted person at the time of those events. They found that no reasonable alternative explanation to the applicant's account was provided by the Greek authorities and that this further reinforces the applicant's version of events.
The three Judges noted :
- the relevant case-law of the Court, according to which a coherent version of events is a consistent starting point in cases of enforced disappearance, and conclude that the available evidence leads to the conclusion that it was the applicant, and not another person, who was abducted on the evening of 30 May 2013, as he provided a detailed account of the events, detailed the exact place where they allegedly occurred, the itinerary and the circumstances of his surrender to the Turkish authorities.
- that one would expect the accountable State to provide adequate explanations as to how the events took place, especially given that the car used belonged to the Greek police, pointing out that, according to the ECtHR's case-law on Articles 2 and 3, where the events in their entirety or in large part are solely within the knowledge of the authorities, as in the case of persons under their control and in particular in cases of reported enforced disappearance, the burden of proof as to what happened to them shifts to the authorities.
- They further find that there is sufficient evidence to establish that the applicant's alleged abduction and the deprivation of liberty, which he suffered as a result of it, were carried out with the involvement of the Greek State.
The three dissenting judges conclude that :
- "[...]the lack of an effective ex post investigation by the Greek authorities into the applicant's disappearance, which the Chamber unanimously found, reinforces the conclusion that they were involved in the events of 30 May 2013[..] […]».
- "[...]Having regard to the manner in which the events occurred, namely that the applicant's eyes were covered, first with his hands and then with a hood, and that his hands were handcuffed, the applicant's abduction and transfer to the Republic of Turkey undoubtedly caused him feelings of distress and fear amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 [..]”.
That judgment, 10 years after the abduction was reported and the applicant's imprisonment in Turkey, vindicates, in so far as it accepted, the anguished efforts of the applicant's lawyers, who from almost that very moment of the abduction, by repeated communications with the competent police authorities, denounced with evidence the enforced disappearance of the applicant and sought to prevent his surrender to Turkey, where he faced serious persecution and the risk of torture on account of his political beliefs. The strong minority, moreover, in its detailed Opinion, leaves open the possibility of referring the case to the Grand Chamber of the Court for a further ruling on the merits of the application.
Athens, 1 February 2023
Network for the Social Support of Immigrants and Refugees
Greek Council for Refugees (GCR)
Group of Lawyers for the Rights of Refugees and Migrants


