You are here

Home › Refugee Status › International Law › Effective access to procedures › Effective remedy (right to) › Procedural guarantees › ECrtHR Case law ›

EDAL case summaries

ECtHR - I.M. v France, Application No. 9152/09

Country of Applicant: Sudan
Keywords: Accelerated procedure, Credibility assessment, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid, Non-refoulement, Personal interview, Procedural guarantees, Refugee Status, Relevant Facts, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Torture

The detention of asylum applicants may undermine their ability to claim asylum and that an ‘effective remedy’ requires an appeal with suspensive effect against refoulement in order to prevent irreparable harm, sufficient time to prepare the appeal and effective legal assistance and interpretation.
Date: 02-05-2012

ECtHR - Gebremedhin (Gaberamadhien) v France, Application No. 25389/05

Country of Applicant: Eritrea
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Procedural guarantees, Refugee Status, Return

The case concerns access to a remedy with suspensive effect by an asylum seeker, who claimed asylum at the French border, against a potential removal from France to a country where there is real reason to believe he would face the risk of being subjected to ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR.
Date: 26-04-2007

ECtHR - Chahal v. The United Kingdom, Application No. 22414/93, 15 November 1996

Country of Applicant: India, United Kingdom
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Detention, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Final decision, Procedural guarantees, Real risk, Refugee Status, Return, Torture

This case involved the UK’s attempted deportation of an Indian citizen and leader of the Sikh separatist movement who lived in the UK and was allegedly a national security threat. Because of the risk of ill-treatment, the Court found the UK would breach Art. 3 if he were deported to India, in conjunction with a violation of Art. 13. Because he was not able to review the lawfulness of his prolonged detention, the Court also found a violation of Art. 5 (4). 
Date: 15-11-1996

Filter by case summary type

Filter by applicable legal provisions

Filter by date

Filter by country of applicant