EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Russia
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Detention, Final decision, Procedural guarantees, Relevant Facts, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Subsequent application
Where the ECtHR has, under Article 39 of the ECHR, granted interim measures prohibiting the Government from deporting the Applicant, this does not impact the ability of national courts to rule on the Applicant’s claim to asylum. The interim measures are binding on national authorities only.
Date: 06-02-2017
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Country of origin, Credibility assessment, Final decision, Individual threat, Non-refoulement, Persecution (acts of), Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Personal circumstances of applicant, Protection, Real risk, Refugee Status, Return, Subsidiary Protection, Well-founded fear
An application for international protection lodged by an Afghan who illegally entered Austria was rejected. The Court found that the applicant had no well-founded fear of persecution in his country of origin nor was he to be granted the subsidiary protection status.
Date: 29-11-2013
Country of Applicant: Kazakhstan
Keywords: Country of origin, Country of origin information, Effective remedy (right to), Final decision, Manifestly unfounded application, Nationality, Non-refoulement, Persecution (acts of), Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Political Opinion, Previous persecution, Protection, Refugee Status, Torture, Well-founded fear
A potential violation of Art. 3 of the Convention can be found when a person risks to be extradited to a country where practice of ill-treatment of detainees are reported by reliable sources, notwithstanding possible assurances by the involved public prosecutors of that country.
Given the irreversible and particular serious nature of the harm which might occur if risks relevant under art. 3 of the Convention materialise, an effective remedy to avoid such a harm within the meaning of art. 13 of the Convention requires both an independent and rigorous scrutiny of a claim...
Date: 18-05-2010
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
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Final decision filterFinal decision
- Refugee Status 3
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 2
- Country of origin 2
- Detention 2
- Effective remedy (right to) 2
- Non-refoulement 2
- Persecution (acts of) 2
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 2
- Procedural guarantees 2
- Protection 2
- Real risk 2
- Return 2
- Torture 2
- Well-founded fear 2
- Country of origin information 1
- Credibility assessment 1
- Effective access to procedures 1
- Individual threat 1
- Manifestly unfounded application 1
- Nationality 1
- Personal circumstances of applicant 1
- Political Opinion 1
- Previous persecution 1
- Relevant Facts 1
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 1
- Subsequent application 1
- Subsidiary Protection 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 1
- India 1
- Kazakhstan 1
- Russia 1
- United Kingdom 1
