Quick answer
In M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (Grand Chamber, 21 January 2011, application no. 30696/09), the European Court of Human Rights held that both respondent States had violated the Convention in the treatment of an Afghan asylum-seeker transferred between them under the EU’s Dublin system. Greece violated Article 3 (through his detention conditions and his subsequent destitution) and Article 13; and Belgium violated Article 3 and Article 13 by transferring him to Greece and thereby exposing him to those conditions and to the risk of onward refoulement.
Background and facts
The applicant, an Afghan national, entered the European Union through Greece and travelled on to Belgium, where he applied for asylum. Applying the Dublin II Regulation, Belgium transferred him back to Greece as the State responsible for examining his claim. In Greece he was detained in poor conditions and then left to live on the street in a state of extreme poverty, without the means to meet his basic needs, while the asylum procedure remained dysfunctional and offered little prospect of a proper examination of his claim.
The complaint
The applicant complained under Article 3 and Article 13 against both Greece (for his detention and living conditions and the deficient asylum procedure) and Belgium (for exposing him to those risks by transferring him).
The Court’s reasoning
Against Greece, the Court held that the applicant’s conditions of detention amounted to degrading treatment, and that leaving him, as an asylum-seeker, in a situation of extreme material deprivation — unable to meet his most basic needs while dependent on the authorities — also reached the threshold of Article 3. The serious deficiencies in the asylum procedure, and the risk of removal without proper examination of his claim, disclosed a violation of Article 13 taken with Article 3.
Against Belgium, the Court held that it could not simply rely on a presumption that Greece, as a Dublin partner, would respect the applicant’s rights. The deficiencies in the Greek asylum system and reception conditions were sufficiently well known — from numerous reports — that the Belgian authorities knew or ought to have known of them. By transferring him, Belgium knowingly exposed him to those conditions and to the risk of refoulement, in violation of Article 3, and denied him an effective remedy contrary to Article 13.
The judgment
- violations by Greece of Article 3 (detention and living conditions) and of Article 13 taken with Article 3;
- violations by Belgium of Article 3 (the transfer) and of Article 13 taken with Article 3.
Why this case matters
- It qualified mutual trust between EU States. A State cannot transfer an asylum-seeker on a blind presumption that the receiving State will comply with the Convention.
- Destitution can breach Article 3. The State’s treatment of asylum-seekers left in extreme poverty can, in itself, cross the Article 3 threshold.
- It reshaped EU asylum law. The judgment strongly influenced the Court of Justice of the EU and the reform of the Dublin system.
What this means for applicants
- A transfer or removal can be challenged where the receiving State’s conditions or asylum procedure expose the person to a real risk under Article 3.
- Reception conditions matter — detention and destitution are assessed against Article 3.
- Evidence of systemic deficiencies in the destination State is central to such a challenge.
This page summarises a leading judgment and is not legal advice on any individual case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece decide?
The Grand Chamber held that Greece violated Articles 3 and 13 through the applicant’s detention and destitute living conditions and its deficient asylum procedure, and that Belgium violated Articles 3 and 13 by transferring him to Greece under the Dublin system despite the known risks.
Did the case affect the EU’s Dublin system?
Yes. It established that States cannot transfer asylum-seekers on a blind presumption of safety and strongly influenced later EU law on Dublin transfers.
Can extreme poverty amount to a breach of Article 3?
In this case the Court held that leaving an asylum-seeker in a situation of extreme material deprivation, dependent on the authorities, reached the threshold of degrading treatment under Article 3.
Convention Articles engaged
Cases against this state
Related ECHR cases
- Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey
- Selmouni v. France
- Gäfgen v. Germany
- Aksoy v. Turkey
- Bouyid v. Belgium
- Othman (Abu Qatada) v. the United Kingdom
Facing a similar case?
Our lawyers represent individuals before the European Court of Human Rights. Speak to an ECHR lawyer, learn how to apply to the ECHR, or check the admissibility criteria.