EDAL case summaries
Slovakian authorities provided information and interpretation and there are no indications that these were inadequate to the extent of impairing the individual’s access to asylum. The applicant’s return to Ukraine was conducted in the context of a readmission framework and there was no reason for Slovakian authorities to be particularly alert regarding potential human rights violations in Ukraine.
However, there has been a procedural violation of Article 3 of the Convention by Ukraine on account of the Ukrainian authorities’ failure to examine...
The standardised nature of the questions to the applicants and similarities in the responses recorded do not necessarily indicate a lack of individualised assessment. The applicants were not deprived of an opportunity to submit arguments against their expulsion and did not make any claim of persecution risks in their country of origin. No collective expulsion under Article 4 Protocol 4 has been established.
Similarly, no violation of Article 4 Protocol 4 in conjunction with Article 13 has been established, as the claim cannot be considered...
The Court found no violation of the Convention given that the applicants would have had access to a genuine and effective possibility of submitting arguments against their expulsion had they entered lawfully into Spain – they did not have any “cogent reasons” for not using the border procedures available at designated entry points. As such, the lack of an individualised procedure for their removal was the consequence of their own conduct.
Confinement of asylum applicants in an airport transit zone is contrary to Art. 5 § 1 (f) in the absence of any domestic legal basis for the applicants’ deprivation of liberty.
Confinement of asylum seekers left to their own devices in airport transit zones under the control of border authorities, without unimpeded access to shower or cooking facilities, outdoor exercise and medical or social assistance amount to degrading and inhuman conditions under Art. 3 ECHR if protracted for a long time.
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...
The European Court of Human Rights finds Russian authorities violated an American national’s Article 8 right to respect for family life, as it had compelled her to leave Russia, where her husband and minor child were living.
The ECtHR argues that the expulsion of a Moroccan National from Sweden to Morocco would represent a breach on article 3 ECHR.
The detention conditions experienced by two Syrians in the Krasnoye Selo facility amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 ECHR. Moreover, the length of detention in most of the applicants’ cases was between eleven and fifteen months, which exceeded what was reasonably required for the purpose of administrative expulsion. Furthermore, they had no access to judicial and periodic review of their continued detention. A violation of Articles 5(1)(f) and 5(4) were found.
NB: the case was referred to the Grand Chamber, which issued a new ruling on 13 February 2020. For the EDAL summary of the final judgment, see here.
The continued and exclusive control of contracting State's authorities over individuals creates, at least, a de facto exercise of jurisdiction for the purposes of Article 1 ECHR.
The ECtHR confirms previous decisions stating that Turkish law concerning procedural safeguards of detention continues to violate Article 5 §§ 4, 5 ECHR and that the applicant was not duly informed of the reasons for his detention. Moreover, the Court confirms that the detention conditions in Istanbul Kumkapi Removal Centre violate Article 3 ECHR.
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
- (-) Remove ECrtHR Case law filterECrtHR Case law
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Procedural guarantees filterProcedural guarantees
- Effective remedy (right to) 23
- Detention 17
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 17
- Effective access to procedures 15
- Return 12
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 8
- Refugee Status 7
- Delay 5
- Non-refoulement 5
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 5
- Real risk 4
- Torture 4
- Accelerated procedure 3
- Individual assessment 3
- Obligation to give reasons 3
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 2
- Credibility assessment 2
- Family unity (right to) 2
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 2
- Personal circumstances of applicant 2
- Protection 2
- Reception conditions 2
- Relevant Facts 2
- Well-founded fear 2
- Best interest of the child 1
- Child Specific Considerations 1
- Death penalty / Execution 1
- Dublin Transfer 1
- Final decision 1
- Indirect refoulement 1
- Manifestly unfounded application 1
- Material reception conditions 1
- Membership of a particular social group 1
- Personal interview 1
- Political Opinion 1
- Safe third country 1
- Subsequent application 1
- Subsidiary Protection 1
- Unaccompanied minor 1
- War crimes 1
- Withdrawal of protection application 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 5
- Iraq 4
- Iran 3
- Sudan 3
- Syria 3
- Eritrea 2
- Ivory Coast 2
- Mali 2
- Tunisia 2
- Uzbekistan 2
- Armenia 1
- Bangladesh 1
- India 1
- Jordan 1
- Morocco 1
- Palestinian Territory 1
- Somalia 1
- Sri Lanka 1
- United Kingdom 1
- United States 1
- Zimbabwe 1