Landmark hearings at the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on pushbacks on the Belarusian border

On 12 February 2025, the Grand Chamber held a hearing on the case of H.M.M. and Others v Latvia and the related cases of R.A. and Others. v Poland and C.O.C.G. and Others v Lithuania. The cases concerned widespread practices of pushbacks of migrants from Latvia, Lithuania and Poland to Belarus in a context where Belarus had sought to facilitate border crossings in an attempt to destabilise its neighbours.

In H.M.M., Latvia adopted ‘Order 518’ in August 2021, which declared a state of emergency in the border regions, mandated the immediate return of migrants who irregularly crossed the border, permitted physical force and use of “special means”, and prohibited officials from accepting asylum applications within the state of emergency area. 

The Applicants (Iraqi nationals, many of whom are children) submit that, pursuant to Order 518, they were subject to a series of pushbacks back and forth across the border by Latvian and Belarusian officials for weeks and months, during which time they were stranded in the forest and subject to ill-treatment.

The Applicants’ case is that Belarus’ condemnable actions cannot justify violations of absolute and fundamental rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’). The Applicants submitted at the hearing that: (i) Latvia’s practice of subjecting them to pushbacks without examining their asylum requests violated Latvia’s obligations under Article 3 and Article 4 of Protocol No.4 to the ECHR; and that (ii) the conditions they were subjected to at the border and their treatment by Latvian authorities amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and, at times, torture under Article 3 ECHR. The alleged treatment included gratuitous beatings, use of tasers, incommunicado detention, and – in one instance – forcing individuals to kneel in Muslim prayer positions for hours.

Latvia disputes the facts alleged, and argues that the case is inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction and exhaustion of domestic remedies. Latvia also invites the Court to find that the geopolitical context and actions of Belarus provide grounds to justify its practice of pushbacks and summary removals. If that argument is accepted, it would represent a significant departure from the Court’s well-established case law under Article 3 ECHR and the principle of non-refoulement. 

The Grand Chamber’s judgments will have significant implications in respect of the interpretation and application of the ECHR in the context of immigration and asylum.

Joshua Jackson acted as an adviser for the Applicants. He appeared alongside Naomi Hart and Camille Boileau of Essex Court Chambers, and Kirill Koroteev and Nikita Matyushchenkov.