## Facts

- An Afghan national fled Kabul in 2008, entered the European Union via Greece, traveled to Belgium, and sought asylum there.
- Belgium applied the Dublin II Regulation to assign responsibility to Greece, requested Greece to take charge of the asylum claim, and transferred the applicant to Greece in June 2009.
- In Greece, the applicant was detained for several days in overcrowded, unsanitary conditions with inadequate hygiene and toilet access.
- After release, Greek authorities issued an asylum document but provided no effective accommodation or material support; the applicant lived for months in homelessness and extreme poverty, lacked practical access to sanitary facilities, and relied on charity.
- Reports from international organizations and NGOs documented widespread deficiencies in Greek reception conditions and asylum procedures, including barriers to access, inadequate legal assistance, and ineffective protection against removal.
- The applicant challenged both Greece’s treatment and Belgium’s decision to transfer him to Greece, alleging violations of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), particularly Articles 3 and 13.

## Issues

1. Whether Greece violated ECHR Article 3 through the applicant’s detention conditions and post-release living conditions.
2. Whether Greece violated ECHR Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 by failing to provide an effective remedy and functioning procedure to prevent removal exposing the applicant to an Article 3 risk.
3. Whether Belgium violated ECHR Article 3 by transferring the applicant to Greece despite known systemic deficiencies creating a real risk of degrading treatment and ineffective asylum examination.
4. Whether Belgium violated ECHR Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 by failing to provide an effective remedy, including suspensive effect, against the Dublin transfer.

## Decision

- The European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber) found Greece violated Article 3 based on both the applicant’s detention conditions and his post-release living conditions as an asylum seeker.
- The Court found Greece violated Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 because the asylum process and remedies did not provide real, practical access to an effective examination or protection against removal where an arguable Article 3 claim existed.
- The Court found Belgium violated Article 3 by transferring the applicant to Greece while knowing or having reason to know of systemic deficiencies in Greek reception conditions and asylum procedures that created a real risk of Article 3 treatment and onward removal without adequate scrutiny.
- The Court found Belgium violated Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 because available challenges to the transfer were not effective in practice and did not provide automatic suspensive effect.
- The Court awarded just satisfaction (including non-pecuniary damages and costs).

## Legal Principles

- ECHR obligations are not displaced by inter-state allocation rules for asylum responsibility; a transferring state remains responsible for foreseeable Article 3 risks arising from a transfer.
- Where reliable, widely available information shows systemic deficiencies in the receiving state’s reception conditions or asylum system, a sending state must assess the real risk to the individual and may not rely on a conclusive presumption of compliance.
- Detention conditions involving severe overcrowding, inadequate hygiene, and restricted access to basic sanitary needs can reach the Article 3 threshold, particularly for vulnerable asylum seekers.
- Extreme material deprivation and homelessness resulting from state action or inaction toward an asylum seeker can amount to inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 when basic needs are unmet over a sustained period.
- Article 13 requires a practical and effective remedy for arguable Article 3 claims in the asylum/removal context, including timely and rigorous review capable of preventing removal; effectiveness generally requires suspensive effect when removal would expose the person to an Article 3 risk.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Greece’s detention and reception failures subjected the applicant to inhuman or degrading treatment and that both Greece and Belgium lacked effective remedies to prevent exposure to Article 3 risks, making Belgium responsible for transferring the applicant into a system marked by documented, systemic asylum and reception deficiencies.


M.S.S. v. Belgium & Greece, App. No. 30696/09 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2011)