You are here
Home ›
News ›
Detention › Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) ›
News
- H.A. v Greece (Application No. 59670/19): The applicant, an Ethiopian national, complains that her living conditions on the Samos Island were contrary to Article 3 ECHR. At the time of making an application for international protection the applicant was 7 months pregnant and without adequate shelter.
Date:
Tuesday, December 11, 2018
The European Court of Human Rights has recently communicated four asylum-related cases:
Date:
Thursday, January 11, 2018
The European Court of Human Rights has recently communicated several asylum-related cases:
Date:
Thursday, December 15, 2016
On the 15th December the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR gave its ruling in the case of Khlaifia v.
Date:
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
The case of
R. v. Russia relates to an ethnic Uzbek national of Kyrgyzstan who fled to Russia to avoid ethnically motivated violence.
Date:
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
The Committee of Ministers 1236th human rights meeting, in which it supervised the execution of judgments of the ECtHR, took place between 22 and 24 September. A number of asylum-related judgments were on the agenda, although they were not subject to detailed examination, and relevant documents were distributed prior to the meeting.
Date:
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
Khlaifia and Others v. Italy relates to three Tunisian nationals who left on makeshift boats aiming to reach Italy in September 2011 during the ‘Arab Spring’. The Italian coastguard intercepted them and took them to the island of Lampedusa. They were transferred to the Contrada Imbriacola reception centre for registration, which was overcrowded with unacceptable sanitation, inadequate space to sleep and no contact with the outside world due to constant police surveillance.
This case relates to a Syrian man who claimed asylum in Belgium in June 2015. He had previously claimed asylum in Romania, but left after 6 days and lodged a claim in Germany. The German authorities refused his case on the basis that Romania was responsible under the Dublin III Regulation. The applicant then claimed asylum in Belgium.
The facts of the case relate to an Uzbek national who had been detained in Russia on two separate yet subsequent accounts. The first, following an extradition request lodged by the Uzbek authorities on account of alleged participation in extremist organisations, the second following an administrative expulsion decision pursuant to a breach of domestic immigration law. A concurrent set of proceedings were then initiated by the applicant, the first relating to an appeal against his extradition and a second on his asylum application and a subsequent appeal. On both accounts the Russian authorities rejected the appeals surmising that the applicant did not face a real risk of ill-treatment [27].
Date:
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
The Applicant is a Palestinian paraplegic who is wheel-chair bound, which he alleges results from injuries sustained in an Israeli missile attack on his house in the Gaza strip in 2007. He was taken to Turkey in March 2008 by a humanitarian organisation, where he married his physiotherapist, a Turkish national, in April 2009. A few months later, he was detained pending deportation in Kumkapı Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre on suspicion of involvement in international terrorism.
Pages
