You are here
Home › Safe third country ›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...
Detention within the context of immigration must be lawful, not arbitrary and carried out in good faith. In this sense, the depriavation of liberty without a realistic prospect of removal is against the prevision of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
CJEU (First Chamber) finds appeal against decision of the General Court dismissing the actions for annulment of the ‘EU-Turkey Statement of 18 March 2016’ manifestly inadmissible.
The case concerns an application for the annulment of the decision of the Appeals Committee which rejected the applicant’s previous application to overturn the decision of the Regional Asylum Office of Samos whereby he was denied international protection. The Court determined that the case was inadmissible, accepted the relevant justifications given by the Appeals Committee and rejected the application.
In cases of deportation to a third country, the competent authority is required to assess, on a case-by-case basis, if the third country offers effective legal protection against deportation to the state of origin.
In the case of a Turkish journalist of Kurdish origin, the competent authority had only insufficiently assessed if the applicant enjoys sufficient legal protection in Brazil against refoulment to Turkey. It therefore violated her right to be heard.
Transit through a third country cannot be considered a sufficient connection for the purposes of the “safe third country” concept on the sole reason that the country is located in proximity to the country of origin. Other conditions, such as the length of stay or the existence of a supporting network, need to be present for such a connection to exist.
The right to be heard entails the obligation of the court to take note of the arguments put forward by the parties and to take these arguments into consideration when taking its decision. While this does not require the court to explicitly address every single fact put forward by the parties, the grounds of the decision have to refer to the essential issues raised by such facts.
In case of a single mother and her four minor children facing deportation to a country where beneficiaries of international protection had to live under difficult conditions, these personal circumstances of...
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-...
1. An application for asylum lodged in Germany only qualifies as a subsequent application within the meaning of section 71a of the Asylum Act, interpreted in conformity with the constitution, if the first asylum procedure in a country that is generally determined to be a safe third country has actually been conducted in compliance with the 1951 Refugee Convention as well as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
This is not the case, where, at the time of the decision, there have been systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedures of the third country which have put the...
Asylum authority’s decision regarding the application of the safe third country principle quashed. The Court pointed out that the application of the STC principle is ‘absolutely unacceptable.’
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Safe third country filterSafe third country
- Dublin Transfer 17
- Non-refoulement 15
- Effective access to procedures 13
- Effective remedy (right to) 13
- First country of asylum 12
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 12
- Procedural guarantees 10
- Detention 9
- Reception conditions 8
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 8
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 7
- Burden of proof 7
- Humanitarian considerations 7
- Inadmissible application 6
- Persecution (acts of) 6
- Refugee Status 6
- Return 6
- Benefit of doubt 5
- Indirect refoulement 5
- Material reception conditions 5
- Personal circumstances of applicant 5
- Request to take back 5
- Responsibility for examining application 5
- Subsidiary Protection 5
- Accelerated procedure 4
- Access to the labour market 4
- Accommodation centre 4
- Country of origin 4
- Credibility assessment 4
- Individual assessment 4
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 4
- Protection 4
- Real risk 4
- Family unity (right to) 3
- Internal protection 3
- Obligation to give reasons 3
- Personal interview 3
- Religion 3
- Standard of proof 3
- Stateless person 3
- Vulnerable person 3
- Child Specific Considerations 2
- Country of former habitual residence 2
- Country of origin information 2
- Delay 2
- Dependant (Dependent person) 2
- Family member 2
- Health (right to) 2
- Integration measures 2
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 2
- Manifestly unfounded application 2
- Previous persecution 2
- Race 2
- Relevant Documentation 2
- Relevant Facts 2
- Subsequent application 2
- Terrorism 2
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 1
- Best interest of the child 1
- Cessation of protection 1
- Crime against humanity 1
- Discrimination 1
- Exclusion from protection 1
- Family reunification 1
- Final decision 1
- Gender Based Persecution 1
- Indiscriminate violence 1
- Individual threat 1
- Internal armed conflict 1
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 1
- Membership of a particular social group 1
- More favourable provisions 1
- Nationality 1
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 1
- Request that charge be taken 1
- Residence document 1
- Serious harm 1
- Serious non-political crime 1
- Temporary protection 1
- Torture 1
- Well-founded fear 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Syria 13
- Afghanistan 7
- Iran 5
- Pakistan 5
- Russia 5
- Somalia 4
- Bangladesh 3
- Eritrea 3
- Sudan 3
- Turkey 3
- Azerbaijan 2
- Ivory Coast 2
- Nigeria 2
- Senegal 2
- Unknown 2
- Albania 1
- Algeria 1
- Angola 1
- Cameroon 1
- Congo (DRC) 1
- Czech Republic 1
- Iraq 1
- Lithuania 1
- Nepal 1
- Palestinian Territory 1
- Saudi Arabia 1
- Sri Lanka 1
Filter by country of decision
- Germany 13
- United Kingdom 11
- Sweden 6
- Belgium 4
- Greece 4
- Netherlands 3
- Slovenia 3
- Finland 2
- Ireland 2
- Austria 1
- Hungary 1
- Slovakia 1
- Spain 1
- Switzerland 1