Proceedings of the International scientific and practical conference ―The Hague Conference on Science and Public Policy‖ (May 8-10, 2026) / Publisher website: www.naukainfo.com. – The Hague, Netherlands, 2026. - 232 p.

161 Eritrea were intercepted by Italian naval forces on the high seas and returned to Libya without any individual assessment of their circumstances or access to asylum procedures. The Court found that such actions constituted a violation of Article 3 ECHR, as the applicants faced a real risk of inhuman treatment in Libya and subsequent return to their countries of origin. The Court also found a violation of the prohibition of collective expulsion, emphasizing the obligation of States to carry out an individualized assessment in each case. This judgment is of fundamental importance, as it confirmed the extraterritorial application of the Convention in situations where a State exercises effective control over individuals outside its territory [9]. Particular attention is given by the Court to procedural guarantees, which constitute an integral component of the principle of non-refoulement. In M.S.S. v . Belgium and Greece, the applicant, an asylum seeker from Afghanistan, was transferred by Belgium to Greece despite well-documented systemic deficiencies in reception conditions and asylum procedures in Greece. The ECtHR found that such transfer without a proper individual assessment of the actual conditions and risks in the receiving State resulted in a violation of Article 3 ECHR. The Court noted that the applicant found himself in a situation of extreme material deprivation and vulnerability incompatible with the standards of the Convention. It further stressed that effective protection against removal requires not only a substantive assessment of risk but also effective procedural safeguards, including remedies with automatic suspensive effect capable of preventing execution of the removal decision pending its review on the merits. Thus, the Court established the procedural dimension of the principle of non-refoulement as an essential element of its practical application [10]. Accordingly, the jurisprudence of the ECtHR demonstrates the gradual evolution of the principle of non-refoulement from a specialized rule of refugee law into a universal standard of human rights protection applicable to foreigners, refugees, asylum seekers, and other individuals irrespective of their legal status. The Court‘s case-law establishes that the prohibition of removal covers all forms of forced return where there is a real risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment.