Latest News

Italy: Preliminary Judge of the Court of Agrigento clears Sea Watch 3 Captain of Charges

Sunday, June 30, 2019

On 30 June 2019, the Preliminary Judge of the Court of Agrigento cleared the Captain of the search and rescue vessel Sea Watch 3, Carola Rackete, of all charges brought against her.  

France: Council of State orders Prefecture of Grande Synthe to introduce urgent measures

Friday, June 21, 2019

On 21 June, the Council of State ordered the Prefecture of Grande Synthe to introduce emergency measures for the population in distress residing on its territory, overturning a previous dismissal of the case by Lille Administrative Court.

UK: Home Office ordered to bring back returned Ugandan asylum applicant

Monday, June 24, 2019

On 24 June 2019, England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) held that an asylum seeker who had been returned to Uganda in 2013 must be brought back to the United Kingdom to have her asylum claim heard.

The applicant was detained in the UK on 21 July 2013

Latest Cases

Country of Applicant: Tunisia , Keywords: Detention, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Individual assessment, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Procedural guarantees , Date of Decision: 15-12-2016

The applicants’ detention under Article 5 (1) was arbitrary and did not ensure the principle of legal certainty; lack of information was contrary to Article 5 (2) and impaired their ability to challenge the detention decisions in violation of 5 (4). The conditions at the reception centre and the boats did not amount to a violation of Article 3, as the applicants’ stay was very short and there were not sufficient indications.

There was no violation of Article 4 Protocol 4, as the applicants have had a genuine and effective possibility during the entire procedure to raise concerns regarding obstacles to their return to Tunisia; there was similarly no violation of Article 4 Protocol 4 in conjunction with Article 13, since the applicants’ complain would solely relate on the collective nature of their expulsion and not to any real risk of treatment contrary to Article 2 & 3 in Tunisia.

Country of Decision: Greece , Country of Applicant: Bangladesh , Keywords: Refugee Status, Residence document, Vulnerable person , Date of Decision: 31-12-2018

The recognition of gender identity is a matter of respect towards the individual’s personality, protected under Greek and international law and applicable by analogy to refugees. Refugees must be able to request assistance from the authorities of the host-country, as refugeehood entails severed ties with the country of origin making it impossible for recognised refugees to request official actions from their governments.


Keywords: Best interest of the child, Dublin Transfer, Responsibility for examining application , Date of Decision: 23-01-2019

The notification about the intention of withdrawal from the EU by the Member-State responsible for the examination of the application for international protection does not trigger the determining Member-State’s obligation to make use of the discretionary clause of Article 17(1) 604/2013 EU. Similarly, Article 6 (1) cannot be interpreted as imposing an obligation on the Member State that is not responsible to take into account the best interests of the child and to examine the application itself under 17 (1)

About EDAL

The European Database of Asylum Law (EDAL) is an online database managed by the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) and a compilation of summaries of refugee and asylum case law from the courts of 22 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 Stavros Papageorgopoulos (