EDAL case summaries
The continuation of detention beyond the period of 90 days, while the appeal against the decision rejecting the asylum application was still pending, is a disproportionate measure of deprivation of liberty for the applicant. Alternative measures must be considered.
The Belgian authorities carried out a reasonable assessment, balancing the risk to public safety with the applicant’s mental health, in deciding the applicant’s detention. The duration and medical care provided in detention were lawful and justified.
Withdrawal of detention due to the use of forged travel documents and subsequent obligation to appear before the competent authorities, given to the pending status of the application for asylum.
The ECtHR ruled that the detention of a Syrian national was unlawful as his return to Syria was impracticable, which the authorities should have known at that time. It was incumbent on the domestic authorities to consider alternative measures in respect of the applicant. The applicant did not have the benefit of an examination of the lawfulness of his detention to a sufficient degree. Therefore, there was a violation of Articles 5(1) and (4) ECHR.
The ECtHR also ruled that his detention at the Zografou police station led to a violation of his...
The ECtHR ruled that the detention of an Egyptian national upon arrival in Belgium was lawful as there had been no violation of Article 5(1) of ECHR and the refusal of refugee status was justified.
The case concerns the validity of the first subparagraph of Article 8(3)(a) and (b) of the Receptions Conditions Directive in the light of Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
This case primarily dealt with the lawfulness of a prolonged period of detention in the context of whether there was a reasonable prospect of deportation and also of evidence of both current mental illness and previous torture and trafficking.
AA claims he was unlawfully detained from 17 February 2015 to 27 February 2015 because he was detained as an unaccompanied child in a way contrary to paragraph 18B Schedule 2 of the Immigration Act 1971.
The decision turned on whether the word “child” in the Immigration Act 1971 was to be interpreted objectively (i.e. is the individual, in physical fact, under 18) or whether the detention’s legality involved the reasonable belief of the immigration officer that the individual is under 18.
The Court found that there had been a violation of Article 3 in relation to detention conditions at Tychero. There was no violation of Article 5(1) insofar as the detention was not arbitrary and was in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law, but there was a violation of Article 5(4) in relation to the ineffectiveness of the judicial review of detention conditions. Further, there was a violation of Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 3, because the Greek authorities had deported the Applicant to Turkey, without verifying whether his asylum claim was still...
The Court found a violation of Articles 3 and 5(4) ECHR in relation to the Applicant’s detention conditions at Fylakio and Aspropyrgos, and the shortcomings of domestic law in relation to the judicial review of his detention.
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Detention filterDetention
- (-) Remove Refugee Status filterRefugee Status
- Effective remedy (right to) 22
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 21
- Real risk 13
- Well-founded fear 13
- Material reception conditions 10
- Reception conditions 10
- Effective access to procedures 9
- Return 7
- Political Opinion 6
- Persecution (acts of) 5
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 5
- Torture 5
- Burden of proof 4
- Country of origin 4
- Health (right to) 4
- Procedural guarantees 4
- Race 4
- Access to the labour market 3
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 3
- Delay 3
- Dublin Transfer 3
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 3
- Non-refoulement 3
- Personal circumstances of applicant 3
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 3
- Safe country of origin 3
- Accommodation centre 2
- Country of origin information 2
- Duty of applicant 2
- Individual assessment 2
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 2
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 2
- Personal interview 2
- Previous persecution 2
- Protection 2
- Serious harm 2
- Subsequent application 2
- Subsidiary Protection 2
- Terrorism 2
- Unaccompanied minor 2
- Accelerated procedure 1
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 1
- Armed conflict 1
- Benefit of doubt 1
- Best interest of the child 1
- Child Specific Considerations 1
- Credibility assessment 1
- Discrimination 1
- Family reunification 1
- Female genital mutilation 1
- Final decision 1
- First country of asylum 1
- Inadmissible application 1
- Indirect refoulement 1
- Indiscriminate violence 1
- Individual threat 1
- Integration measures 1
- Internal armed conflict 1
- Nationality 1
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 1
- Relevant Documentation 1
- Relevant Facts 1
- Request that charge be taken 1
- Request to take back 1
- Responsibility for examining application 1
- Revocation of protection status 1
- Standard of proof 1
- Trafficking in human beings 1
- Vulnerable person 1
- Withdrawal of protection application 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Iran 6
- Turkey 5
- Afghanistan 4
- Sudan 4
- Somalia 3
- Syria 3
- Algeria 2
- Egypt 2
- Tunisia 2
- China 1
- France 1
- Gambia 1
- India 1
- Iraq 1
- Ivory Coast 1
- Jordan 1
- Kyrgyzstan 1
- Lebanon 1
- Morocco 1
- Nigeria 1
- Pakistan 1
- Palestinian Territory 1
- Russia 1
- Sierra Leone 1
- Sri Lanka 1
- United Kingdom 1
Filter by country of decision
- Greece 4
- United Kingdom 2
- Germany 1