Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Y.K. v. Croatia:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Croatia violated Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights in the case of a Turkish national of Kurdish ethnicity, Y.K. The Croatian authorities repeatedly refused to allow Y.K. access to the international protection procedure, effectively preventing him from seeking asylum. The Court determined that Y.K.’s departure from Croatia was not voluntary, as he was pressured and misled by the authorities, and that he did not have an effective domestic remedy to challenge his removal. The Court also highlighted that the Croatian authorities did not properly assess the safety and asylum procedures in North Macedonia, where Y.K. was sent.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Sets out the case’s subject matter, focusing on the alleged violations of Articles 3, 13, and 34 of the Convention.
* **Facts:** Details the applicant’s background, his entry into Croatia, his detention, and the events leading to his removal. Key events include the applicant’s arrest, placement in an immigration center, attempts to contact his lawyer, and his eventual departure to North Macedonia.
* **Relevant Legal Framework and Practice:** Outlines the relevant Croatian laws and practices, including the Aliens Act, Administrative Disputes Act, and Constitutional Court Act. It also references a CPT report on immigration detention in Croatia and material on asylum processes in North Macedonia.
* **Law:** This section contains the legal reasoning of the Court.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 3:** Examines whether Croatia violated its obligations under Article 3 by denying the applicant access to the international protection procedure and by his treatment while in detention.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 13:** Assesses whether the applicant had an effective domestic remedy to challenge his removal, as required by Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 34:** Addresses the complaint that Croatian authorities hindered the applicant’s right to individual application to the Court by preventing contact with his lawyer.
* **Application of Article 41:** Deals with the issue of just satisfaction, including damages and costs, to be awarded to the applicant.
3. **Main Provisions and Importance:**
* **Procedural Obligation under Article 3:** The Court emphasized that Croatia had a duty to assess the risk of ill-treatment in Türkiye, given the applicant’s claims of political persecution.
* **Voluntary Departure:** The Court found that the applicant’s departure was not voluntary due to the pressure and misinformation from the authorities, as well as the denial of access to his lawyer.
* **Effective Remedy:** The Court reiterated that remedies must have automatic suspensive effect to be considered effective in cases involving potential violations of Article 3.
* **Assessment of Third Country:** The decision highlights the importance of thoroughly assessing the accessibility and functioning of the asylum system in a third country before removing an asylum seeker there.
* **Just Satisfaction:** The Court awarded the applicant EUR 8,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,300 for costs and expenses.
This decision underscores the importance of providing access to asylum procedures and ensuring that removals are carried out in a manner that respects the rights of asylum seekers under the European Convention on Human Rights.
**** This decision is related to the rights of asylum seekers and the obligations of states to ensure access to fair and effective asylum procedures, which is particularly relevant for Ukrainians seeking protection in Europe.
