Universal-MigrationHRlaw-PG-no-6-Publications-PractitionersGuide-2014-eng

168 | PRACTITIONERS GUIDE No. 6The European Court of Human Rights has held that, in order to complywith the right to a remedy, a person threatened with an expulsion whicharguably violates another Convention right must have:• access to relevant documents and accessible information on thelegal procedures to be followed in his or her case;• where necessary, translated material and interpretation;• effective access to legal advice, if necessary by provision of legalaid; 593• the right to participate in adversarial proceedings;• reasons for the decision to expel (a stereotyped decision that doesnot reflect the individual case will be unlikely to be sufficient) anda fair and reasonable opportunity to dispute the factual basis forthe expulsion. 594Where the State authorities fail to communicate effectively with theperson threatened with expulsion concerning the legal proceedings inhis or her case, the State cannot justify a removal on the grounds of theindividual’s failure to comply with the formalities of the proceedings. 595The European Court of Human Rights has addressed, in the case of I.M.v. France, the compatibility of accelerated asylum procedures with theright to a remedy under Article 13 ECHR in connection with the principleof non-refoulement. While the Court has recognized that these specialprocedures can facilitate the examination of clearly abusive or manifestlyunfounded applications, 596 it stressed that they cannot be used atthe expense of the effectiveness of the essential procedural guaranteesfor the protection of the applicant from an arbitrary refoulement. 597 Inthe case of I.M., the resort to an accelerated asylum procedure to examinethe first application of an asylum seeker resulted in excessivelyshort time limits for the asylum seeker to present his arguments, lackof access to legal and linguistic assistance, and a series of material andprocedural difficulties, exacerbated by the asylum seeker’s detention,which rendered the legal guarantees afforded to him merely theoretical,in breach of Article 13 ECHR. 598593 M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 324, para. 301.594 Ibid., para. 302; C.G. and Others v. Bulgaria, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 510, paras. 56–65. Seealso, Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy, ECtHR, GC, op. cit., fn. 46, paras. 202–204.595 Ibid., para. 312.596 I.M. v. France, ECtHR, Application No. 9152/09, Judgment of 2 February 2012, para. 142.In K.K. v. France, ECtHR, Application No. 18913/11, Judgment of 10 October 2013,paras. 62–71, the Court has upheld the use of an accelerated asylum procedure in thespecific case. See also, Mohammed v. Austria, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 388, para. 79.597 Ibid., para. 147.598 Ibid., para. 150–154.