EDAL case summaries
The Asylum Court allowed an appeal against the decision to transfer the applicants, a family with both physical and psychological medical conditions, to Italy. Given the applicants’ exceptional circumstances and the problems Italy has with capacity, the lack of reliable assurances from the Italian authorities in relation to medical treatment and accommodation gave rise to a risk of a violation of Art 3 ECHR.
The asylum applicant who, in the case of a supervised departure, does not appear at the boarding of his/her flight where his/her pre-transportation to the airport was not ensured, cannot be considered as having absconded.
The case concerned detention and detention conditions in Greece for a Turkish asylum seeker of Kurdish origin, who had been tortured in Turkey, and the conduct of the asylum procedure.
The Administrative Court considered the removal of a Sri Lankan from the UK to Cyprus under the Dublin Regulation. The applicant had been recognised under UNHCR’s mandate as being a refugee in Malaysia but had subsequently travelled via Thailand, Syria and Cyprus to the UK. The Court found that there was no legitimate expectation under the UK’s Mandate Refugee policy to consider his claim in the UK. Further, applying the principles in MSS v Belgium and Greece and KRS v UK, it found that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he faced a risk of onward refoulement...
Inadequate care and unlawful detention of an unaccompanied minor seeking asylum: the case concerned the conditions in which a minor from Afghanistan, who had entered Greece illegally, was held in the Pagani adult detention centre on the island of Lesbos.
Legality of detention in the event of imminent deportation to Greece, if the detention was imposed before the judgment by the ECtHR in the case M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece (application no. 30696/09) and there is an enforceable expulsion decision.
The Council of State addressed a request for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU regarding the application of the Reception Conditions Directive to asylum applicants to whom the Dublin II Regulation applies.
In the opinion of the appeal court, the fact that the defendant disregarded the documents submitted by the applicant in support of his request for an application of Article 3(2) of the Dublin Regulation, and omitted to present an argument in the decision as to why it had not upheld the application, fails to satisfy the requirements of the generally accepted legal principles of administrative procedure, because the outcomes of these actions were not assessed and justified in the decision.
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Reception conditions filterReception conditions
- Detention 4
- Dublin Transfer 4
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 3
- Non-refoulement 3
- Responsibility for examining application 3
- Vulnerable person 3
- Effective remedy (right to) 2
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 2
- Request that charge be taken 2
- Return 2
- Accelerated procedure 1
- Best interest of the child 1
- Child Specific Considerations 1
- Effective access to procedures 1
- Family member 1
- Final decision 1
- Health (right to) 1
- Inadmissible application 1
- Material reception conditions 1
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 1
- Safe third country 1
- Subsequent application 1
- Torture 1
- Unaccompanied minor 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of decision
- Austria 2
- France 2
- Slovakia 1
- United Kingdom 1