Latest News


Italy: Court of Cassation clarifies the scope of the right to legal aid for “irregular migrants”

Date: 
Friday, January 5, 2018

On 5 January 2018, the Italian Court of Cassation published its decision in case 164/2018 concerning the appeal brought by a Nigerian national against the decision of the Juvenile Court of Naples that revoked her access to legal aid granted by the Council of the Bar Association on the basis that the applicant was not regularly residing in Italy and was allegedly not entitled to benefit from legal aid.

UK Court of Appeal: guidance on stays of removal in Article 3 ECHR cases with reference to Paposhvili v Belgium

Date: 
Tuesday, January 30, 2018

On 30 January 2018, the England and Wales Court of Appeal ruled in case AM (Zimbabwe) & another v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The case concerned two appeals against the removal of foreign nationals from the UK where they are suffering from serious illness, raising a possible breach of Article 3 ECHR.

UN Committee on the Rights of the Child delivers its first decision on the merits of an individual communication

Date: 
Thursday, January 25, 2018

On 25 January 2018, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child adopted its first view on the merits of a communication under the individual complaints mechanism, in respect of Communication no. 3/2016 - IAM (on behalf of KYM) v. Denmark.

Latest Cases


Country of Applicant: Georgia, Russia, Russia (Chechnya) , Keywords: Detention, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Return , Date of Decision: 12-04-2005

Thirteen applicants from Georgia and Russia (of Chechen origin) alleged that their extradition to Russia, where capital punishment was not abolished, exposed them to the risk of death, torture or ill-treatment contrary to Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. The applicants also alleged that they had been subject to violence and ill-treatment by fifteen members of the Georgian Ministry of Justice’s special forces in Tbilisi Prison no.5., on the night of 3 and 4 October 2002. Their legal representatives asserted that Mr Aziev, one of the extradited applicants, had died as a result of ill-treatment inflicted on him. The applicants also complained of violations of Article 2 and 3, Article 5 §§ 1, 2 and 4, Article 13 in conjunction with articles 2 and 3, Article 34, Articles 2, 3 and 6 §§ 1,2 and 3 and Article 38 § 1 of the Convention. 

Country of Decision: United Kingdom , Country of Applicant: Sri Lanka , Keywords: Actor of persecution or serious harm, Benefit of doubt, Credibility assessment, Duty of applicant, Relevant Documentation, Standard of proof , Date of Decision: 19-07-2017

The Tribunal reasserted the decision maker’s duty of confidentiality in considering documents produced in support of a protection claim. Where there is a needed to make an inquiry in the country of origin then written consent must be given by the applicant. Moreover, Article 22 of the Asylum Procedures Directive prohibits direct contact with the alleged actor of persecution. Additionally, the Refugee Convention requires that the authentication of a document is undertaken with a precautionary approach, namely whether an inquiry is necessary or should be framed in a specific manner and whether there is a safer alternative. Ultimately, disclosure of personal information should go no further than is strictly necessary.

The Tribunal found that the respondent was unlikely to have breached confidentiality in her inquiries into the authenticity of the documents produced; and that if she had, the remedy would not be the grant of refugee status; and that the appellant had not established that he had a credible case for asylum on the basis of the documents submitted. Nonetheless the Tribunal highlighted that a failure to comply with the duty of confidentiality might be relevant to the overall assessment of risk on return. 

Country of Decision: Poland , Country of Applicant: Pakistan , Keywords: Burden of proof, Child Specific Considerations, Detention, Effective remedy (right to), Individual assessment, Manifestly unfounded application, Material reception conditions, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Reception conditions, Relevant Documentation, Relevant Facts, Standard of proof , Date of Decision: 02-03-2017

The application of S.C. and her minor children Z.C. and F.C. related to the cassation of an Appeal Court judgement regarding compensation for the harm they suffered as a result of an indisputably unjust decision to place the Applicants in a Guarded Detention Centre for Foreigners. The Supreme Court reversed the challenged judgement and passed the case to the Appeal Court for re-consideration. 

About EDAL


The European Database of Asylum Law (EDAL) is an online database co-ordinated by the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) and a compilation of summaries of refugee and asylum case law from the courts of 20 European states, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The summaries are published in English and in the relevant state’s national language.

For more information please see here.

If you are interested in contributing an article on a relevant subject to the EDAL blog or would like to inform us about an important national judgment, please kindly send an email to Amanda Taylor (ataylor@ecre.org) or Julia Zelvenska (jzelvenska@ecre.org).