The case concerned the interception of Syrian Nationals at sea by the Cypriot authorities and their immediate return to Lebanon, where they had already spend four years in a refugee camp after they had fled Syria because of civil war. The applicants maintained that they were asylum seekers and had stated that they wished to seek asylum in Cyprus, while the Cyprian government treated them as economic migrants.
The two applicants in this case are cousins and are Syrian nationals living in Lebanon. In 2016 they fled Syria because of the war, the targeting of civilians and the destruction of their homes. They fled to Lebanon where they stayed in camps run by the Office of the United nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The applicants allege that they had no access to healthcare, no prospect of obtaining employment and no entitlement to basic human rights there. They also fled being sent back to Syria as was the case for many Syrian refuges in Lebanon.
After an explosion in Lebanon, they decided to seek asylum in Cyprus. They paid 2500 dollars to be smuggled by boat. The applicants allege that on arrival on territorial waters of Cyprus the boat was intercepted by the coastguard. They were not allowed to continue their journey but were provided with food. The Cyprian interpreter informed them they were not allowed to enter the country and should turn back or they would be escorted back by the police. The applicants informed the interpreter they wished to apply for asylum informing the interpreter of their circumstances. The interpreter ignored them and took their identity cards form them, and left them on the boat for the time being.
Lawyers of the applicants appealed to the court to apply interim measures to stop the government from returning the applicants to Lebanon as that would be contrary to international refugee law as the risk of chain refoulement to Syria was high. The lawyer asked the courts to let them into Cyprus to claim asylum. The court claimed they required more information on the applicants personal circumstances to make a decision. By which time, according to the applicants, the applicants were tricked onto boat that forcibly returned them back to Lebanon. The government asserted that since they entered the territorial waters without permission and they had not requested international protection, they had been returned to Lebanon.
The applicants brought the matter to the ECHR relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention and of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens) to the Convention, the applicants complained that the Cypriot authorities had refused to allow them access to an asylum procedure and had returned them to Lebanon as part of a collective measure without examining their asylum claims or their individual circumstances. They also complained that they had not had access to an effective domestic remedy
The Courts held that there had been a violation of Article 3,4 & 13. A violation of the prohibition of inhumane or degrading treatment, a violation of the prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens, a violation of the right to effective remedy.
The court found the Cypriot authorities has essentially returned the applicants to Lebanon without processing their asylum claims and without all the steps required under Refugee Law. It was evident form the government submissions that the national authorities had not conducted any assessment of the risk of lack of access to an effective asylum process in Lebanon or the living conditions of asylum seeker there and had not assessed the risk of refoulement – the forcible removal of refugees to a country where they might be subject to persecution.