You are here
Home ›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...
In order to guarantee that an applicant for international protection has an effective judicial remedy within the meaning of Article 47 of the Charter, a national court or tribunal is required to vary a decision of the first-instance determining body that does not comply with its previous judgment. The court or tribunal must substitute its own decision on the application for international protection by disapplying, if necessary, the national law that prohibits it from proceeding in that way.
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.
Detention conditions in Greek police stations and living conditions in Idomeni Camp in northern Greece for five unaccompanied children were in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. A further violation was found in respect of Article 5 § 1 regarding the “protective custody” of unaccompanied children in police stations.
Extradition to Iran to face criminal charges would risk a violation of Article 3 due to possible exposure to flogging under Iranian penal law.
Residence permits obtained in the context of family reunification and long-term resident status, under Directives 2003/86 and 2003/109, may be withdrawn if they were issued on the basis of falsified documents, even if the holders were unaware of the fraud committed.
The precarious living conditions in Calais and the failure of the French authorities to comply with judicial orders to protect the applicant, in view of his personal circumstances and young age, reach the threshold for a breach of Article 3.
Delays in the asylum procedure which cannot be imputed to the asylum seeker, and failure to consider less coercive alternatives when detention exceeds reasonable time limits, render detention unlawful.
The notification about the intention of withdrawal from the EU by the Member-State responsible for the examination of the application for international protection does not trigger the determining Member-State’s obligation to make use of the discretionary clause of Article 17(1) 604/2013 EU. Similarly, Article 6 (1) cannot be interpreted as imposing an obligation on the Member State that is not responsible to take into account the best interests of the child and to examine the application itself under 17 (1)
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
- National Case law 1277
- ECrtHR Case law 230
- CJEU Case law 96
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 250
- Subsidiary Protection 235
- Effective remedy (right to) 234
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 209
- Detention 208
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 206
- Dublin Transfer 205
- Refugee Status 203
- Credibility assessment 194
- Procedural guarantees 188
- Effective access to procedures 166
- Membership of a particular social group 155
- Internal protection 149
- Country of origin information 148
- Return 120
- Persecution (acts of) 118
- Well-founded fear 111
- Real risk 107
- Responsibility for examining application 107
- Reception conditions 103
- Family unity (right to) 102
- Personal circumstances of applicant 99
- Individual assessment 98
- Political Opinion 97
- Serious harm 93
- Non-refoulement 91
- Exclusion from protection 85
- Subsequent application 84
- Burden of proof 82
- Best interest of the child 80
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 75
- Protection 75
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 75
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 73
- Standard of proof 72
- Vulnerable person 72
- Internal armed conflict 70
- Indiscriminate violence 69
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 69
- Child Specific Considerations 67
- Religion 67
- Unaccompanied minor 67
- Gender Based Persecution 65
- Relevant Documentation 63
- Torture 63
- Material reception conditions 61
- Safe third country 60
- Individual threat 59
- Family member 57
- Relevant Facts 57
- Request to take back 57
- Humanitarian considerations 56
- Personal interview 54
- Previous persecution 52
- Actors of protection 51
- Family reunification 51
- Country of origin 50
- Discrimination 50
- Accelerated procedure 45
- Obligation to give reasons 45
- Refugee sur place 45
- Delay 44
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 43
- Sexual orientation 43
- Armed conflict 39
- Revocation of protection status 38
- Benefit of doubt 35
- Health (right to) 35
- Terrorism 35
- Inadmissible application 34
- First country of asylum 33
- Manifestly unfounded application 32
- Request that charge be taken 32
- Nationality 31
- Access to the labour market 26
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 26
- Crime against humanity 26
- Duty of applicant 25
- Race 25
- Dependant (Dependent person) 23
- Final decision 23
- Accommodation centre 22
- Safe country of origin 22
- Serious non-political crime 22
- Circumstances ceased to exist 21
- Residence document 20
- Stateless person 19
- Trafficking in human beings 19
- Freedom of movement (right to) 18
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 18
- Visa 17
- War crimes 17
- Cessation of protection 16
- Indirect refoulement 16
- Female genital mutilation 13
- Integration measures 13
- Country of former habitual residence 10
- International armed conflict 10
- Death penalty / Execution 9
- More favourable provisions 9
- Education (right to) 6
- Withdrawal of protection application 6
- Sponsor 5
- Genocide 3
- Temporary protection 3
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 188
- Iraq 112
- Iran 95
- Russia 88
- Nigeria 83
- Somalia 82
- Syria 71
- Turkey 57
- Unknown 48
- Pakistan 42
- Russia (Chechnya) 37
- Eritrea 35
- Sudan 34
- Congo (DRC) 32
- Sri Lanka 32
- Algeria 30
- Kosovo 26
- Cameroon 20
- Palestinian Territory 20
- Ukraine 20
- Armenia 18
- Morocco 17
- Ethiopia 16
- Guinea 16
- Rwanda 16
- Albania 15
- Bangladesh 14
- China 14
- Georgia 14
- Ivory Coast 14
- Lebanon 13
- Colombia 12
- Serbia 12
- Egypt 11
- Gambia 11
- Ghana 11
- Tunisia 10
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 9
- Senegal 9
- Uzbekistan 9
- Belarus 8
- India 8
- Angola 7
- Kyrgyzstan 7
- Mali 7
- Mongolia 7
- Sierra Leone 7
- Uganda 7
- Vietnam 7
- Azerbaijan 6
- Kazakhstan 6
- Libya 6
- Zimbabwe 6
- Burundi 5
- Croatia 5
- Mauritania 5
- South Africa 5
- Tanzania 5
- Togo 5
- United Kingdom 5
- Bulgaria 4
- Jordan 4
- Kenya 4
- Lithuania 4
- Moldova 4
- United States 4
- Western Sahara 4
- Brazil 3
- China (Tibet) 3
- Cuba 3
- Liberia 3
- Macedonia 3
- Benin 2
- Bhutan 2
- Botswana 2
- Chad 2
- Cyprus 2
- France 2
- Germany 2
- Haiti 2
- Israel 2
- Kuwait 2
- Myanmar 2
- Niger 2
- North Korea 2
- Saudi Arabia 2
- Slovakia 2
- South Korea 2
- Austria 1
- Burkina Faso 1
- Central African Republic 1
- Comoros 1
- Congo (Republic of) 1
- Czech Republic 1
- Djibouti 1
- Dominican Republic 1
- Ecuador 1
- Gabon 1
- Greece 1
- Guinea-Bissau 1
- Indonesia 1
- Jamaica 1
- Madagascar 1
- Malawi 1
- Montenegro 1
- Namibia 1
- Nepal 1
- New Zealand 1
- Philippines 1
- Romania 1
- Tajikistan 1
- Thailand 1
- Zambia 1
Filter by country of decision
- France 158
- Germany 143
- United Kingdom 143
- Ireland 87
- Austria 77
- Belgium 75
- Sweden 74
- Czech Republic 58
- Netherlands 57
- Poland 57
- Spain 48
- Greece 47
- Hungary 45
- Finland 42
- Italy 42
- Slovenia 35
- Slovakia 30
- Denmark 25
- Luxembourg 15
- Switzerland 11
- Cyprus 6
- Portugal 1