Help us make the FRA website better for you!

Take part in a one-to-one session and help us improve the FRA website. It will take about 30 minutes of your time.

YES, I AM INTERESTED NO, I AM NOT INTERESTED

cc test

jkjh

When domestic remedies are ineffective or have been exhausted without tangible results, cases are filed with the ECtHR. As shown in Table 1, by 1 July 2025, the ECtHR had communicated some 30 pending cases entailing alleged ill-treatment at the EU’s external borders to eight different Member States.

Applicants in these cases allege violence and ill-treatment during apprehension and subsequent summary return by land to the neighbouring country; ill-treatment during summary expulsion at sea; delayed search and rescue; abandonment of people in forest areas at borders without access to basic amenities or exposing applicants to life-threatening situations; and lack of access to legal remedy to challenge their return.

Table 1 – ECtHR, communicated cases alleging violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR, as at 1 July 2025

Member State

Number of pending cases

Reference

Bulgaria

1

E.R.A. v. Bulgaria, No 55918/22

Croatia

2

S.B. v. Croatia,Nos 18810/19, 18865/19 and 23495/19; Y.K. v. Croatia, No 38776/21

Cyprus

2

K.P.O. and Others v. Cyprus and E.A.A.E. and Others v. Cyprus,Nos 32295/24 and 5455/25; Kamakwili and Kalonbo v. Cyprus, No 36786/24

Greece

8

Wasim Abonahi v. Greece, No 22920/16; N.A.A. and Others v. Greece and North Macedonia, No 28795/16; G.K. v. Greece, No 51519/19; A.A.N. and Other v. Greece, No 38203/20; N.Y. and Others v. Greece, No 40725/20; L.A. and Others v. Greece and A.A. v. Greece, Nos 12237/20 and 12736/20; S.A.A and Others v. Greece,No 22146/21; K.A. and Others v. Greece and Turkey, and B.A. and Others v. Greece and Turkey, Nos 35090/22 and 38444/22

Latvia

3

H.M.M. and Others v. Latvia, No 42165/21, (relinquishment in favour of the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR); S.S. v. Latvia, No 15408/23;

M.A. and Others v. Latvia, No 1134/23

Lithuania

2

C.O.C.G. v. Lithuania, No 17764/22 (relinquishment in favour of the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR); A.S and Others v. Lithuania, No 44205/21

Poland

10

R.A. and Others v. Poland, No 42120/21, (relinquishment in favour of the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR); K.A. v. Poland and M.A. and Others v. Poland, Nos 52405/21 and 53402/21; F.A. and S.H. v. Poland, No 54862/21; H. K. and Others v. Poland, No 12752/22; A.A. and Others v. Poland, Nos 48018/21, 61103/21, 53181/21, 51241/22, 15318/22, 2509/22; Judgment of the First Section of the ECtHR of 30 May 2023, A.A. and Others v. Poland and M.A. v. Poland, Nos 15182/22 and 40833/22; A.S. v. Poland, No 15318/22;I.A. and Others v. Poland, No 53181/21; M.M. and Others v. Poland, No 2509/22; A.M. v. Poland, No 33674/22

Total

30

 

NB: The table does not include cases alleging violations of Articles 2 or 3 of the ECHR upon return to a non-EU country.

Source: FRA (2025) based on hudoc.echr.coe.int.

Since November 2021, the ECtHR has issued six judgments in which it found that national investigations into migrants’ rights violations at borders were ineffective or domestic remedies were not available [17]
 See Judgment of the First Section of the ECtHR of 18 November 2021, M. H. and Others v. Croatia, Nos 15670/18 and 43115/18; Judgment of the First Section of the ECtHR of 7 July 2022, Safi and Others v. Greece, No 5418/15; Judgment of the First Section of the ECtHR of 2 February 2023, Alhowais v. Hungary, No 59435/17; Judgment of the Third Section of the ECtHR of 16 January 2024, Douaa Alkhatib and Others v. Greece, No 3566/16; Judgment of the First Section of the ECtHR of 5 October 2023, Shahzad v. Hungary (No 2), No 37967/18; Judgment of the Third Section of the ECtHR of 7 January 2025, A.R.E. v. Greece, No 15783/21.


 
. They concerned allegations of violations of the right to life (Article 2 of the ECHR) and allegations of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3 of the ECHR) during apprehension and subsequent summary return.

In A.R.E. v. Greece, the ECtHR ruled that authorities failed to initiate prompt, thorough and independent inquiries, neglecting to collect and to assess crucial evidence or to interview victims and witnesses, in what has been labelled as a ‘preliminary investigation manifestly insufficient’ (paragraph 199).