You are here

Home › Vulnerable person › Accelerated procedure ›

EDAL case summaries

UK - R (on the application of AM (a child by his litigation friend OA and OA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dublin – Unaccompanied Children – Procedural Safeguards)

Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Eritrea
Keywords: Accelerated procedure, Dublin Transfer, Effective access to procedures, Family member, Family unity (right to), Unaccompanied minor, Vulnerable person

The imposition of a "one-off" expedited procedure in France for unaccompanied children wishing to reunite with their family in the UK fell within the framework of the Dublin Regulation. The failure by the UK Secretary of State to give full effect to the Dublin Regulation (most notably Article 17) and the Commission’s Implementing Regulation was unlawful and as a consequence the applicant was deprived of a series of procedural safeguards and protection.

In addition the applicant’s procedural rights have been violated by virtue of the procedural deficiencies and shortcomings...
Date: 05-06-2017

United Kingdom - R (on the application of LMC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, 17 June 2016

Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Gambia
Keywords: Accelerated procedure, Credibility assessment, Detention, Effective access to procedures, Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Procedural guarantees, Reception conditions, Sexual orientation, Torture, Vulnerable person

The detention of an asylum-seeker who claimed he had been tortured because of his sexual orientation was unlawful in part.
Date: 17-06-2016

UK - The Queen on the Application of JM, RE, KW, MY, IK, Y, PU (Claimants) and the Secretary of State for the Home Department (First Defendant)

Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Albania, Nigeria
Keywords: Accelerated procedure, Detention, Personal circumstances of applicant, Trafficking in human beings, Vulnerable person

The High Court approved of the claimant asylum seekers' and the defendant Secretary of State's consent order for settlement. The defendant accepted responsibility for failing to remove the claimants from the DFT, despite indicators that they were vulnerable and not suited to the DFT, and for failing to inform them about the National Referral Mechanism (NRM).
Date: 09-07-2015

Filter by case summary type

Filter by applicable legal provisions

Filter by date

Filter by country of applicant

Filter by country of decision