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 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-...
The detention of an asylum-seeker who claimed he had been tortured because of his sexual orientation was unlawful in part.
The case concerns three unconnected Iranian nationals who unsuccessfully claimed asylum in the Republic of Cyprus then came to the UK where they made asylum claims. A further right to appeal remained with the Cypriot Supreme Court. The case is a challenge by the applicants to the SSHD’s refusal to decide their asylum claims substantively; certification of their asylum claims on safe third country grounds; and certification of their human rights claims as clearly unfounded.
The Court concluded that there was no real risk that the...
The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s judgment in reaffirming that the procedural rules governing an appeal against a negative decision on asylum conducted under the Detained Fast Track (DFT) system are ultra vires and thus unlawful.
This case concerns the use of s. 13(6) findings under the Refugee Act as amended and the issues surrounding depriving an applicant of an oral hearing on the basis of their delay in claiming asylum. The Court rules that the Minister has discretion to apply s.13(6) but it must be proportionate and reasonable.
This was a decision of the Polish Refugee Board of 31 January 2013 to uphold that part of the decision of the Head of the Polish Office for Foreigners which concerned refusal to accord refugee status and to overturn the remainder of the decision as well as to grant subsidiary protection.
In the course of criminal proceedings conducted against a foreigner in Poland it was revealed to Iranian consular officials that the foreigner concerned was being held at the Centre for Foreigners seeking refugee status in Dębak. This could have been tantamount to disclosing that the foreigner was...
This case concerns Art. 23 of Directive 2005/85/EC and the possibility of prioritising the processing of asylum applications by persons belonging to a certain category defined on the basis of nationality or country of origin. The case also deals with the right to an effective judicial remedy under Art. 39 of Directive 2005/85/EC and the concept of ‘court or Tribunal’ within the meaning of that article.
The detention of asylum applicants may undermine their ability to claim asylum and that an ‘effective remedy’ requires an appeal with suspensive effect against refoulement in order to prevent irreparable harm, sufficient time to prepare the appeal and effective legal assistance and interpretation.
With this judgment, the General Assembly of CALL is trying to bring its case law in line with the M.S.S. judgment of the ECtHR.
The CALL set the conditions under which an appeal for suspension against an enforceable decision (an order to leave the territory) has automatic suspensive effect.
After a prima facie examination (in extreme urgency), the CALL decided that the applicant in this casehas a reasonable ground of appeal on the basis of Article 3 of the ECHR, as he gave sufficient indications of the concrete problems he was experiencing in Poland. The CALL derived...
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Accelerated procedure filterAccelerated procedure
- (-) Remove Procedural guarantees filterProcedural guarantees
- Detention 7
- Effective access to procedures 7
- Effective remedy (right to) 6
- Dublin Transfer 3
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 3
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 3
- Non-refoulement 3
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 3
- Safe third country 3
- Credibility assessment 2
- Delay 2
- Individual assessment 2
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 2
- Obligation to give reasons 2
- Personal interview 2
- Relevant Facts 2
- Request to take back 2
- Torture 2
- Access to the labour market 1
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 1
- Country of origin information 1
- Final decision 1
- Health (right to) 1
- Inadmissible application 1
- Indirect refoulement 1
- Membership of a particular social group 1
- Nationality 1
- Reception conditions 1
- Refugee Status 1
- Responsibility for examining application 1
- Return 1
- Sexual orientation 1
- Standard of proof 1
- Subsequent application 1
- Vulnerable person 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Bangladesh 2
- Russia 2
- Afghanistan 1
- Gambia 1
- Iran 1
- Iraq 1
- Nigeria 1
- Pakistan 1
- Sudan 1
Filter by country of decision
- United Kingdom 3
- Belgium 1
- Ireland 1
- Poland 1