EDAL case summaries
Country of Applicant: Bangladesh
Keywords: Accelerated procedure, Detention, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Procedural guarantees, Safe third country
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...
Date: 21-11-2019
Country of Applicant: United States
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Family unity (right to), Procedural guarantees
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.
Date: 12-06-2018
Country of Applicant: Morocco
Keywords: Detention, Effective remedy (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Procedural guarantees, Return
The ECtHR argues that the expulsion of a Moroccan National from Sweden to Morocco would represent a breach on article 3 ECHR.
Date: 09-01-2018
Keywords: Detention, Effective remedy (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Procedural guarantees, Return
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.
Date: 12-12-2017
Country of Applicant: Ivory Coast, Mali
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid, Procedural guarantees, Return
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.
In light of Spain's jurisdiction over N.D. and N.T, who had attempted to cross the fences separating Morocco from Melilla, Spain was bound by the prohibition of collective expulsions under the Convention. A standardised response of removal to the applicants attempted entry to the Spanish territory without any identification procedure or administrative or judicial measure being first taken meant that...
Date: 03-10-2017
Country of Applicant: Uzbekistan
Keywords: Detention, Effective remedy (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Obligation to give reasons, Procedural guarantees
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.
Date: 05-09-2017
Country of Applicant: Zimbabwe
Keywords: Delay, Detention, Procedural guarantees
The Court held that detention is considered to be arbitrary within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 ECHR, if the length of the detention exceeds what is reasonable for the purpose pursued. It is to be examined whether the authorities have acted with ‘due diligence’.
In cases, such as the present, where the detention has been upheld for a long period, although lawfully, authorities are required to take additional steps in order to proceed with an asylum claim more speedily. When the detained person can be considered as ‘vulnerable’ a higher level of...
Date: 22-06-2017
Country of Applicant: Iraq, Palestinian Territory, Somalia, Syria
Keywords: Detention, Effective access to procedures, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Procedural guarantees
Four applicants were refused entry into Russia and claimed refugee status. They were detained in the transit zone of Sheremetyevo airport and Russia was found to be in violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the ECHR.
Date: 28-03-2017
Country of Applicant: Bangladesh
Keywords: Accelerated procedure, Detention, Dublin Transfer, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Indirect refoulement, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Non-refoulement, Procedural guarantees, Safe third country
The procedure applied by the Hungarian authorities in considering Serbia a ‘Safe Third Country’ was not appropriate to provide the necessary protection against a real risk of inhuman and degrading treatment. The schematic reference to the Hungarian Government’s list of safe third countries and disregard of country reports by reputable international organisations imposed an unfair and excessive burden of proof on the applicants, breaching the effective procedural guarantees provided for in Article 3 and subjecting them to inhuman or degrading treatment due to a possible “chain-...
Date: 14-03-2017
Country of Applicant: Tunisia
Keywords: Detention, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Individual assessment, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Procedural guarantees
The applicants’ detention under Article 5 (1) was arbitrary and did not ensure the principle of legal certainty; lack of information was contrary to Article 5 (2) and impaired their ability to challenge the detention decisions in violation of 5 (4). The conditions at the reception centre and the boats did not amount to a violation of Article 3, as the applicants’ stay was very short and there were not sufficient indications.
There was no violation of...
Date: 15-12-2016
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 19
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 18
- Effective access to procedures 17
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 8
- Return 8
- Refugee Status 7
- Non-refoulement 6
- Delay 5
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 5
- Accelerated procedure 4
- Real risk 4
- Torture 4
- Obligation to give reasons 3
- Credibility assessment 2
- Dublin Transfer 2
- Family unity (right to) 2
- Indirect refoulement 2
- Individual assessment 2
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 2
- Personal circumstances of applicant 2
- Protection 2
- Relevant Facts 2
- Safe third country 2
- Well-founded fear 2
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 1
- Best interest of the child 1
- Child Specific Considerations 1
- Death penalty / Execution 1
- Final decision 1
- Manifestly unfounded application 1
- Membership of a particular social group 1
- Personal interview 1
- Political Opinion 1
- Reception conditions 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
- Iraq 4
- Afghanistan 3
- Iran 3
- Sudan 3
- Syria 3
- Tunisia 3
- Bangladesh 2
- Eritrea 2
- Uzbekistan 2
- Armenia 1
- India 1
- Ivory Coast 1
- Jordan 1
- Mali 1
- Morocco 1
- Palestinian Territory 1
- Somalia 1
- Sri Lanka 1
- United Kingdom 1
- United States 1
- Zimbabwe 1
