M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece (GC), App No 30696/09

What was at stake

Dublin transfer to Greece; reception & detention conditions; effective remedy

What happened

M.S.S. was an Afghan asylum seeker who travelled to Europe through Greece before reaching Belgium, where he lodged an asylum claim. Under the Dublin II Regulation, Belgium transferred him back to Greece as the first EU member state of entry. Upon return to Greece, M.S.S. was detained in conditions he described as degrading — overcrowded facilities with inadequate food, sanitation, and access to daylight — and was subsequently left destitute, living on the streets with no access to subsistence support or effective processing of his asylum claim. He brought applications against both Greece (for the conditions he endured) and Belgium (for transferring him there despite knowledge of those conditions).

What the court decided

Violations of Articles 3 and 13 due to conditions and procedural deficiencies; landmark on reception standards and transfer suspensions.

How the court got there

The Court reasoned that Greece had violated Article 3 both through the degrading detention conditions and through leaving M.S.S. in a situation of extreme poverty incompatible with human dignity, and had violated Article 13 by failing to provide an effective remedy against deportation. Belgium violated Article 3 because its authorities knew or ought to have known of the systemic deficiencies in the Greek asylum system and reception conditions, yet proceeded with the transfer without obtaining individual guarantees; Belgium also violated Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 because its domestic remedies lacked the necessary suspensive effect to constitute an effective remedy. The Grand Chamber held that a member state cannot simply rely on a presumption of Convention compliance by another member state when there is reliable evidence of systemic failures affecting the individual applicant.

Who pushed back

Judge Sajó, joined by Judge Lazarova Trajkovska, dissented in part, expressing the view that the majority's approach on Belgium's responsibility under the Dublin system risked undermining the mutual-trust framework of the Dublin Regulation; other partial dissents were recorded on the question of just satisfaction and the scope of Belgium's positive obligations.

Statutes and cases cited

Categories

Authoritative link