EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Health (right to), Reception conditions, Vulnerable person
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.
Date: 06-12-2011
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Russia
Keywords: Request that charge be taken, Reception conditions, Responsibility for examining application, Dublin Transfer
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.
Date: 11-10-2011
Country of Applicant: Turkey
Keywords: Detention, Effective remedy (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Non-refoulement, Reception conditions, Return, Torture, Vulnerable person
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.
Date: 07-09-2011
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Sri Lanka
Keywords: Safe third country, Non-refoulement, Detention, Reception conditions
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...
Date: 11-08-2011
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Best interest of the child, Child Specific Considerations, Detention, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Family member, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Reception conditions, Unaccompanied minor, Vulnerable person
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.
Date: 05-07-2011
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Guinea
Keywords: Accelerated procedure, Detention, Dublin Transfer, Final decision, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Material reception conditions, Non-refoulement, Reception conditions, Request that charge be taken, Responsibility for examining application, Return, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Subsequent application
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.
Date: 28-06-2011
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Unknown
Keywords: Reception conditions, Responsibility for examining application
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.
Date: 07-04-2011
Country of Decision: Slovakia
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Inadmissible application, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Reception conditions
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.
Date: 18-01-2011
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
