EDAL case summaries
Country of Applicant: Georgia
Keywords: Burden of proof, Country of origin, Country of origin information, Family unity (right to), Health (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Relevant Documentation
Article 3 ECHR is triggered in cases involving the removal of a seriously ill individual where the absence of appropriate treatment in the receiving country or the lack of access to such treatment, exposes the individual to a serious, rapid and irreversible decline in his or her state of health resulting in intense suffering or to a significant reduction in life expectancy.
Access to sufficient and appropriate medical care must be available in reality, not merely in theory and the impact of removal on an applicant must be assessed by considering how an applicant’s condition would...
Date: 13-12-2016
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Family unity (right to), Health (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Real risk, Refugee Status, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application
The European Court of Human Rights held that the removal of a Syrian national of Kurdish origin to Italy would not give rise to a violation of Article 3 and 8 of the Convention.
Date: 30-06-2015
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Best interest of the child, Child Specific Considerations, Dublin Transfer, Family unity (right to), Individual assessment, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Material reception conditions, Personal circumstances of applicant, Reception conditions, Responsibility for examining application, Return, Vulnerable person
This case examined the compatibility of the Dublin II Regulation with the European Convention on Human Rights regarding transfers to Italy under the Dublin II Regulation.
The Court found a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights if the Swiss authorities were to send an Afghan couple and their six children back to Italy under the Dublin Regulation without having first obtained individual guarantees from the Italian authorities that the applicants would be taken charge of in...
Date: 04-11-2014
Country of Decision: Slovenia
Country of Applicant: Bosnia and Herzegovina
Keywords: Country of origin information, Discrimination, Family unity (right to), Health (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Personal circumstances of applicant, Serious harm, Subsidiary Protection, Vulnerable person
In the case of the first Applicant, the exceptional personal circumstances dictate round the clock highly qualified medical care, which is provided by health care institutions in Slovenia, while home care is provided by the second Applicant. If such a sick person were forced to leave the stable conditions in Slovenia and start living in a collective centre in BiH, the first Applicant could suffer inhuman or degrading treatment due to inappropriate health care, which would represent serious harm, which in turn justifies subsidiary protection in Slovenia.
In the event that the second...
Date: 24-07-2013
Country of Decision: Greece
Country of Applicant: Iran
Keywords: Death penalty / Execution, Dependant (Dependent person), Discrimination, Family unity (right to), Gender Based Persecution, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Membership of a particular social group, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Protection, Real risk, Refugee Status, Torture, Well-founded fear
This was an appeal against the rejection of an application for asylum before the Appeal Committees formed pursuant to Articles 26 and 32 of Presidential Decree 114/2010; and against the Minister for Citizen Protection's decisions 5401/3-498356 dated 11.2.2011 and 4000/1/67-f dated 18.5.2011. The rejection of the application (and the legal consequences arising from the rejection) was an excusable error, due to the body issuing the decision having adopted misguided practices. The fear of persecution was based on membership of a particular social group. The domestic violence endured by the...
Date: 26-06-2011
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Russia (Chechnya)
Keywords: Humanitarian considerations, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Dublin Transfer, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application, Family unity (right to), Health (right to), Vulnerable person
An expulsion order in relation to an elderly woman with a deteriorating medical condition gave rise to a real risk of a violation of Art 3 and Art 8 ECHR. In light of this risk, the Asylum Court held that the sovereignty clause in the Dublin Regulation should be applied in combination with Article 15 of the same Regulation, even though the latter was not directly applicable in this case.
Date: 28-01-2010
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Russia (Chechnya)
Keywords: Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Dublin Transfer, Procedural guarantees, Family unity (right to), Health (right to), Reception conditions, Vulnerable person
A decision to expel an applicant with post-traumatic stress disorder to Poland did not violate Art 3 ECHR. The Member States guarantee, in accordance with Art 15 of the Reception Conditions Directive, to provide asylum applicants with the necessary medical treatment. Only in very exceptional cases does an expulsion violate Art 3 ECHR, even less frequently in cases of expulsions under the Dublin II regulation.
Date: 06-03-2008
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Armenia
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Family unity (right to), Humanitarian considerations, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Procedural guarantees, Responsibility for examining application
When a transfer under the Dublin Regulation would result in a violation of fundamental rights, the Member State in which the applicant is present can examine the asylum application even though another State should have been responsible under the Dublin Regulation. In this case, the applicant’s wife was allowed to remain in France as she was in the advanced stage of pregnancy and, therefore, transferring the applicant would violate Art 8 ECHR.
Date: 25-11-2003
Country of Applicant: Cyprus
Keywords: Armed conflict, Discrimination, Effective remedy (right to), Family unity (right to), Final decision, Health (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, International armed conflict, Nationality, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Race, Religion
Turkey’s continual and severe failure to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of disappearance of Greek-Cypriots, who were at the time under the control of its agents, constituted a violation of Articles 2,3 and 5 of the ECHR. The circumscription of freedom of movement, religion and association of Greek-Cypriots in Northern Greece constituted violations of Articles 9 and 10 and the continual violation of Article 1 Protocol 1 by virtue of preventing Greek Cypriot owners from having access to, control and use of their property was also found by the Court.
Date: 10-05-2001
Keywords: Country of origin, Effective remedy (right to), Family unity (right to), Health (right to), Humanitarian considerations, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Personal circumstances of applicant, Real risk
The case involved the proposed removal of a convicted alien drug courier dying of AIDS to his country of origin, St Kitts, where he had no access to proper medical treatment, nor accommodation, family, moral or financial support. The Court found that his deportation would amount to a breach of Art. 3 obligations by the UK.
Date: 02-05-1997
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Family unity (right to) filterFamily unity (right to)
- (-) Remove Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment filterInhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Health (right to) 7
- Dublin Transfer 4
- Responsibility for examining application 4
- Vulnerable person 4
- Discrimination 3
- Humanitarian considerations 3
- Personal circumstances of applicant 3
- Real risk 3
- Country of origin 2
- Country of origin information 2
- Effective remedy (right to) 2
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 2
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 2
- Procedural guarantees 2
- Reception conditions 2
- Refugee Status 2
- Request to take back 2
- Armed conflict 1
- Best interest of the child 1
- Burden of proof 1
- Child Specific Considerations 1
- Death penalty / Execution 1
- Dependant (Dependent person) 1
- Final decision 1
- Gender Based Persecution 1
- Individual assessment 1
- International armed conflict 1
- Material reception conditions 1
- Membership of a particular social group 1
- Nationality 1
- Protection 1
- Race 1
- Relevant Documentation 1
- Religion 1
- Return 1
- Serious harm 1
- Subsidiary Protection 1
- Torture 1
- Well-founded fear 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Russia (Chechnya) 2
- Afghanistan 1
- Armenia 1
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 1
- Cyprus 1
- Georgia 1
- Iran 1
- Syria 1
