Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, A.R.E. v. Greece (no. 15783/21).
On 7 January 2025, the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in the case of A.R.E. v. Greece (no. 15783/21).
This is the first Judgment in which the European Court of Human Rights has considered allegations of pushback by the Greek authorities. The Court found inter alia that pushbacks are a “systematic practice” of the Greek authorities, that the Greek authorities had indeed pushed back the Applicant to Türkiye, and that the Greek judiciary does not effectively investigate cases of pushbacks, including the case of the Applicant. Furthermore, the Court found that the Applicants has been informally and arbitrarily detained prior of the push back and noted that pushbacks are carried out in circumstances which put human life at risk.
The Applicant was represented by the Greek Council for Refugees before the European Court of Human Rights and the domestic proceeding. The European Court of Human Rights held an oral hearing to examine the Application in June 2024, at which the Applicant was represented before the Court by lawyers from GCR's Legal Unit.
The case concerns a Turkish woman, A.R.E., who was forced to flee her country of origin due to political persecution and entered Greece via the Evros region in 2019 to seek asylum. She was informally arrested and detained by the Greek authorities and refouled to Türkiye the same day, without ever being given the opportunity to seek asylum in Greece. After being sent back to Türkiye, she was arrested and detained by the Turkish authorities as part of a political prosecution based on her alleged membership of an illegal organisation in Türkiye.
With the support of the Greek Council for Refugees, A.R.E. filed a criminal complaint before the Public Prosecutor of Orestiada, which was rejected at second instance by the Prosecutor of the Court of Appeal of Thrace on the grounds that there was no evidence against the police and that Greece, and in particular the Greek police, never carries out refoulement to Türkiye. Subsequently, A.R.E. filed an Application before the European Court of Human Rights alleging violations of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which was also supported by the GCR, and was eventually vindicated.
More precisely, in the A.R.E. v. Greece Judgment of 7 January 2025, the European Court of Human Rights found, inter alia, that
1) refoulements/pushbacks are a “systematic practice” of the Greek Authorities
ECtHR, A.R.E. v. Greece, 7 January 2025, §§ 216, 222-229.
216. The Court recalls that in the present case the respondent Government fully contested not only the applicant's version of the facts as to her refoulement, but also the existence of a systematic practice of refoulement from Greece to Türkiye […]
229. Having regard to the significant number, variety and concordance of the relevant sources, the Court concludes that there are strong indications to suggest that, at the time of the events alleged, there was a systematic practice of “pushbacks” of third-country nationals, by the Greek authorities, from the Evros region to Türkiye […]
It should be noted that in the Court's decision in GRJ v. Greece case, the European Court of Human Rights also recognized the "systemic practice" of pushbacks by the Greek authorities, from the Greek islands to Türkiye, at the material time of the facts. The Decision in GRJ v Greece has been delivered on the same day with ARE v. Greece (7-1-2025) and concerned the alleged refoulement of an unaccompanied minor from Afghanistan from Samos in 2020. The Court dismissed the application as inadmissible due to the lack of victim status of the Applicant.
ECtHR, G.R.J. v. Greece, 7 January 2025, §§ 190, 225.
“190. Having regard to the significant number, variety and concordance of the relevant sources, the Court concludes that there are strong indications to suggest that, at the time of the events alleged, there was a systematic practice of “pushbacks” of third-country nationals, by the Greek authorities, from the greek islands to Türkiye […]
225. The Court recalls that there are serious indications that, at the material time of the alleged facts, there was a systematic practice of refoulement from the Greek islands to Türkiye” ”.
2) the Greek Authorities had pushed back the Applicant from Evros Region to Türkiye
ECtHR, A.R.E. v. Greece, 7 January 2025, §§ 265-267, 279-284..
“267. The Court considers that it is sufficiently established that the applicant entered Greece […] and that she was arrested and detained there before being refouled to Türkiye, where she was arrested the following day. It concludes that the applicant's allegations are sufficiently convincing and established beyond reasonable doubt.
282. The Court recalls that it has established that the applicant entered Greece via the River Evros, from where she was sent back to Türkiye. It considers that the conduct of the respondent State in the present case, which consisted in turning back a person without allowing him or her access to the asylum procedure, has manifestly violated both domestic and international law.
283. The Court notes that the applicant was sent back to her country of origin, Türkiye, from which she had fled, without any prior examination of the risks she ran under Article 3 of the Convention and consequently her application for international protection”.
3) The Applicant has been informally and arbitrarily detained prior of the pushback to Türkiye
ECtHR, A.R.E. v. Greece, 7 January 2025, §§ 265-267, 279-284..
288. [...] The Court notes that it emerges from the relevant reports [...], that the arrest and subsequent detention, and even a kind of temporary enforced disappearance, of irregular migrants is part of the modus operandi observed in conection with to the practice of refoulement. In that regard, [the Court] notes that it is clear from the file that the applicant was arrested by the Greek authorities and then transferred to the Neo Cheimonio border guard station [...] The Court notes that the Government, which bore the burden of proof, failed to refute the applicant's allegations [...] The Court therefore has no reason to doubt that the applicant was detained with a view to her refoulment.
290. The Court considers that, in so far as the applicant's informal detention constituted a stage prior to her refoulement, it lacked any legal basis within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention and also infringed the rights guaranteed by paragraphs 2 and 4 of that Article.
4) pushbacks put human life at risk
ECtHR, A.R.E. v. Greece, 7 January 2025, § 296..
296. [...] The Court notes in this regard that the relevant documentation shows that push-backs from Greece to Türkiye, including in the Evros region, take place in conditions likely to endanger human life, since the victims are left adrift on inflatable boats. In addition, push-backs follow a fairly uniform modus operandi including in particular, the confiscation of the victims' personal belongings and, sometimes, threats, humiliation and acts of physical violence”
5) the Greek judiciary does not effectively investigate cases of refoulement/pushbacks.
ECtHR, A.R.E. v. Greece, 7 January 2025, §§ 198-199
198. Further to the foregoing and with regard to the criminal proceedings referred to by the Government, the Court notes that it is very clear from the case-file, and in particular from the information provided by the Government itself, that all the cases in which the competent public prosecutors had opened criminal investigations were discontinued […]. As a result, none of these cases progressed beyond the preliminary investigation stage and, consequently, no proceedings were brought against those who might have been responsible. In the light of the very large number of complaints lodged and the reports of the competent national and international institutions, which point to recurrent shortcomings that hamper the effectiveness and diligence of the criminal investigations into the alleged refoulements […] the Court considers that this situation is such as to cast serious doubt on the effectiveness of the criminal proceedings […] It therefore considers that, in the present state of national practice, a criminal complaint does not constitute a remedy to be exhausted in respect of violations of Articles 2, 3 or 5 of the Convention allegedly committed in the course of refoulement.
199. Moreover, the Court notes that the criminal complaint lodged by the applicant in the present case was dismissed by the Public Prosecutor of the Thrace Court of Appeal by order no. 41/2020, in which he held, inter alia, that "the Greek police never carry out such acts of refoulement to Türkiye" (see paragraph 48 above). Above all, the Court notes that the criminal complaint was closed after a preliminary investigation which was manifestly inadequate. Indeed, it is clear from the file that the authorities took no steps to allow the applicant's brother to testify, despite requests to do so, or to verify the authenticity of the audiovisual material submitted to them. Nor did they take the time to carry out a serious examination of the other documents in the file, such as the documents from the Turkish judicial authorities or the statements of the witnesses named by the applicant, […] The Court concludes that the applicant's case is only one of many examples of the ineffectiveness of the criminal proceedings in relation to the allegations of refoulement”.
* The above extracts are not an official translation of the rulings of the Court. The original text of the Judgment of the Court in ARE v Greece and Decision of the Court in GRJ v Greece are available in French on the Court's database.
See more:
- GCR Press Release regarding the Judgment of the Court in A.R.E. v Greece
- Judgment of the Court (in French)
- Press Release of the Court (in English)
- Video of the oral Hearing before the European Court of Human Rights (June 2024)
