EDAL case summaries
Country of Applicant: France, Morocco
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Country of origin information, Detention, Effective access to procedures, Real risk, Relevant Documentation, Relevant Facts, Return, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Safe country of origin, Terrorism
After being notified of his return decision, set to take place on the same day, the applicant requested an interim measure on Article 3 ECHR grounds in the morning but was nonetheless expelled to Morocco in the afternoon. The Court found no violation of Article 3, regarding the applicant’s expulsion to Morocco, by taking into account subsequent information. It found a violation of Article 34 of the Convention, owing to the fact that the applicant had no sufficient time to file a request to the Court, hence running the risk back then of being potentially subjected to treatment prohibited...
Date: 19-07-2018
Country of Applicant: Algeria
Keywords: Country of origin information, Effective remedy (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Real risk, Return, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Safe country of origin, Terrorism
The applicant, an Algerian national convicted in France for terrorism and banned from entering French territory in 2006, was sent back to Algeria in 2014, on the day he was notified of the rejection of his asylum claim and of the issuance of his return order. The Court found that the French authorities violated Article 34 of the Convention by carrying out the applicant’s transfer despite the Court’s interim measure. It also found that France violated Article 3, in the light of the general information regarding the situation of people suspected of international terrorism in Algeria.
Date: 02-07-2018
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Turkey
Keywords: Exclusion from protection, Serious non-political crime, Individual assessment, Manifestly unfounded application, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Terrorism
The exclusion ground “serious non-political crime” does not automatically apply to a supporter of the PKK. In contrast, an examination of the individual responsibility has to be carried out in each case.
Date: 19-11-2010
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) filterRight to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect)
- (-) Remove Terrorism filterTerrorism
- Country of origin information 2
- Real risk 2
- Return 2
- Safe country of origin 2
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 1
- Detention 1
- Effective access to procedures 1
- Effective remedy (right to) 1
- Exclusion from protection 1
- Individual assessment 1
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 1
- Manifestly unfounded application 1
- Relevant Documentation 1
- Relevant Facts 1
- Serious non-political crime 1
Filter by country of decision
- Germany 1
