You are here
Home › Refugee Status › International Law › Effective remedy (right to) › Procedural guarantees ›EDAL case summaries
The Court granted permission to the Applicants to seek judicial review of the negative decision made in a written appeal (rather than an oral appeal) in an application for refugee status made by a South African one-parent family. The decision to allow a written appeal was based on the status of South Africa as a ‘safe country,’ and the appeal decision was based on personal credibility and the absence of a nexus to Convention grounds. The Applicants failed in their argument that the absence of an oral hearing may render the appeal decision unlawful by reference to the right to an effective...
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.
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.
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).
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Effective remedy (right to) filterEffective remedy (right to)
- (-) Remove Procedural guarantees filterProcedural guarantees
- (-) Remove Refugee Status filterRefugee Status
- Effective access to procedures 3
- Credibility assessment 2
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 2
- Personal interview 2
- Return 2
- Torture 2
- Accelerated procedure 1
- Accommodation centre 1
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 1
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 1
- Country of origin information 1
- Detention 1
- Final decision 1
- Gender Based Persecution 1
- Internal protection 1
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 1
- Membership of a particular social group 1
- Non-refoulement 1
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 1
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 1
- Previous persecution 1
- Real risk 1
- Relevant Facts 1
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 1
- Safe country of origin 1
- Subsidiary Protection 1
- Well-founded fear 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Eritrea 1
- India 1
- South Africa 1
- Sudan 1
- United Kingdom 1
Filter by country of decision
- Ireland 1