EDAL case summaries
When State Parties do not examine an application for international protection in its mertis based on a safe third country clause, Article 3 still requires that they apply a thorough and comprehensive legal procedure to assess the existence of such risk by looking into updated sources regarding the situation in the receiving third country. Hungary violated Article 3 by failing to conduct an efficient and adequate assessment when applying the safe third country clause for Serbia.
Article 5 cannot be considered as ratione materiae...
The Constitutional Council decides on the constitutionality of the deadline to appeal against a return order, as applicable to a third-country national being detained, under paragraph 4 of Article L. 512-1 of the Code of Entry and Stay of Foreigners and the Right to Asylum (CESEDA). The Council decides hereby that the deadline proves to be too short- consequently unconstitutional- to effectively exercise the right to remedy in the context of detention.
The ECtHR argues that the expulsion of a Moroccan National from Sweden to Morocco would represent a breach on article 3 ECHR.
The detention conditions experienced by two Syrians in the Krasnoye Selo facility amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 ECHR. Moreover, the length of detention in most of the applicants’ cases was between eleven and fifteen months, which exceeded what was reasonably required for the purpose of administrative expulsion. Furthermore, they had no access to judicial and periodic review of their continued detention. A violation of Articles 5(1)(f) and 5(4) were found.
The ECtHR confirms previous decisions stating that Turkish law concerning procedural safeguards of detention continues to violate Article 5 §§ 4, 5 ECHR and that the applicant was not duly informed of the reasons for his detention. Moreover, the Court confirms that the detention conditions in Istanbul Kumkapi Removal Centre violate Article 3 ECHR.
The Court held that detention is considered to be arbitrary within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 ECHR, if the length of the detention exceeds what is reasonable for the purpose pursued. It is to be examined whether the authorities have acted with ‘due diligence’.
In cases, such as the present, where the detention has been upheld for a long period, although lawfully, authorities are required to take additional steps in order to proceed with an asylum claim more speedily. When the detained person can be considered as ‘vulnerable’ a higher level of...
Four applicants were refused entry into Russia and claimed refugee status. They were detained in the transit zone of Sheremetyevo airport and Russia was found to be in violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the ECHR.
The procedure applied by the Hungarian authorities in considering Serbia a ‘Safe Third Country’ was not appropriate to provide the necessary protection against a real risk of inhuman and degrading treatment. The schematic reference to the Hungarian Government’s list of safe third countries and disregard of country reports by reputable international organisations imposed an unfair and excessive burden of proof on the applicants, breaching the effective procedural guarantees provided for in Article 3 and subjecting them to inhuman or degrading treatment due to a possible “chain-...
UK - R (on the application of AA (Sudan)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, 9 March 2017
It was unlawful to detain an unaccompanied asylum seeking child, even in the reasonable belief that he was an adult.
Where the ECtHR has, under Article 39 of the ECHR, granted interim measures prohibiting the Government from deporting the Applicant, this does not impact the ability of national courts to rule on the Applicant’s claim to asylum. The interim measures are binding on national authorities only.
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Detention filterDetention
- (-) Remove Procedural guarantees filterProcedural guarantees
- Effective remedy (right to) 20
- Effective access to procedures 19
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 12
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 8
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 8
- Accelerated procedure 7
- Delay 7
- Non-refoulement 7
- Return 7
- Dublin Transfer 6
- Reception conditions 6
- Obligation to give reasons 5
- Refugee Status 4
- Safe third country 4
- Access to the labour market 3
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 3
- Best interest of the child 3
- Final decision 3
- Responsibility for examining application 3
- Subsequent application 3
- Torture 3
- Individual assessment 2
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 2
- Real risk 2
- Relevant Facts 2
- Request to take back 2
- Unaccompanied minor 2
- Well-founded fear 2
- Accommodation centre 1
- Child Specific Considerations 1
- Credibility assessment 1
- Family unity (right to) 1
- Freedom of movement (right to) 1
- Health (right to) 1
- Inadmissible application 1
- Indirect refoulement 1
- Membership of a particular social group 1
- Persecution (acts of) 1
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 1
- Personal circumstances of applicant 1
- Protection 1
- Revocation of protection status 1
- Sexual orientation 1
- Standard of proof 1
- Subsidiary Protection 1
- Vulnerable person 1
- Withdrawal of protection application 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Iran 4
- Syria 4
- Afghanistan 3
- Iraq 3
- Russia 3
- Tunisia 3
- Bangladesh 2
- Sudan 2
- Algeria 1
- Armenia 1
- Gambia 1
- India 1
- Morocco 1
- Palestinian Territory 1
- Somalia 1
- Tanzania 1
- Turkey 1
- United Kingdom 1
- Uzbekistan 1
- Zimbabwe 1
Filter by country of decision
- United Kingdom 5
- France 3
- Netherlands 3
- Belgium 1
- Czech Republic 1
- Greece 1
- Ireland 1
- Switzerland 1