Latest News

France: Court of Cassation reaffirms detention under Dublin III Regulation is unlawful

Wednesday, February 7, 2018

On 7 February 2018, the French Court of Cassation reaffirmed in case 149 FS-P+B that the detention of asylum applicants under the Dublin III Regulation is unlawful. The case concerned an Algerian national who had been detained following the submission of a take charge request sent to different Member States.

Belgium: Office of the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons publishes report on non-refoulement and returns to Sudan

Monday, February 12, 2018

Upon a request of the Belgian Vice-Prime Minister, the Belgian Office of the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons has published a report regarding the principle of non-refoulement and forced returns to Sudan.

UK Court of Appeal: lack of adequate procedures for mentally ill migrants in detention centres

Friday, February 2, 2018

On 2 February 2018, the England and Wales Court of Appeal delivered its judgment in case VC, R (On the Application Of) v SSHD, which concerned a mentally ill appellant who had been detained for almost 1 year under immigration powers and been transferred to a psychiatric hospital.

Latest Cases

Country of Applicant: Afghanistan , Keywords: Accommodation centre, Detention, Effective remedy (right to), Health (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid, Material reception conditions , Date of Decision: 25-01-2018

The ECtHR ruled that there had not been a violation of Article 5(1) ECHR in the applicant’s detention at the VIAL hotspot, a day after the entry into force of the EU-Turkey Statement. It also ruled that the threshold of severity required for their detention conditions to be considered as inhuman or degrading treatment had not been reached.

However, the ECtHR found that Greece violated the applicant’s rights under Article 5(2) by not providing them with detailed, understandable information about the reasons for their detention and the remedies available to them.

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. 

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 ( or Julia Zelvenska (