EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: France
Keywords: Delay, Detention, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Procedural guarantees
The Constitutional Council decides on the constitutionality of the deadline to appeal against a return order, as applicable to a third-country national being detained, under paragraph 4 of Article L. 512-1 of the Code of Entry and Stay of Foreigners and the Right to Asylum (CESEDA). The Council decides hereby that the deadline proves to be too short- consequently unconstitutional- to effectively exercise the right to remedy in the context of detention.
Date: 01-06-2018
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Sudan
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Unaccompanied minor, Vulnerable person
The refusal of an entry decision given to an unaccompanied child at the Franco-Italian border is manifestly unlawful and constitutes a severe breach of the applicant’s interest.
Date: 23-02-2018
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Sudan
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Effective access to procedures, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Material reception conditions, Reception conditions, Request to take back
There are systemic deficiencies in the Italian asylum procedure and in its reception conditions for asylum applicants which amount to inhuman or degrading treatment.
Date: 05-01-2018
Country of Decision: France
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid, Procedural guarantees, Relevant Documentation, Subsequent application
The National Court for the Right of Asylum (CNDA) has a responsibility to follow the general rules on closing files. Where this is not done, the Court can be found negligent.
Date: 24-11-2017
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Country of origin information, Effective access to procedures, Indiscriminate violence, Internal armed conflict, Responsibility for examining application, Well-founded fear
Article 3 of the ECHR imposes an absolute obligation on contracting States not to deport an asylum seeker where doing so would expose him or her to a genuine and serious risk of violence. Under the discretionary clause in Article 17(1) of the Dublin III Regulation, this remains the case where the application does not fall within the immediate responsibilities of that State.
Date: 03-04-2017
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Eritrea
Keywords: Delay, Dublin Transfer, Effective access to procedures, Inadmissible application, Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid, Material reception conditions, Obligation to give reasons, Procedural guarantees, Request that charge be taken, Responsibility for examining application, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect)
Both applicants seek legal assistance and to register their application for asylum, which was previously refused by the Alpes Maritimes Prefect. The interim relief judge decided that the Prefect’s refusal to provide the individuals with an application form to register their application for asylum, notwithstanding their presence within the territory and contact with the police, amounted to a serious breach of the right to asylum.
Date: 31-03-2017
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Comoros
Keywords: Best interest of the child, Effective access to procedures, Personal interview, Procedural guarantees, Vulnerable person
Asserting a violation of the procedural rules by the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (‘OFPRA’) when a child’s legal representative or any ad hoc administrator was absent from a hearing, the National Court of Asylum (‘CNDA’) annulled OFPRA’s decision and sent the case back to it to be decided again under the correct circumstances.
The CNDA sets out the limits to the principle of family unity in such as it is not applicable to the child of a refugee, the refugee having obtained that status only through application of the said principle following her...
Date: 05-10-2016
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Congo (DRC)
Keywords: Detention, Dublin Transfer, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Individual assessment, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Personal interview, Request to take back
The applicant had sufficiently established that if returned to Hungary under the Dublin Regulation he would not benefit from an examination of his asylum application in line with procedural guarantees as required by the right to asylum. Such a transfer decision thus violated Article 4 of the Charter.
Date: 27-09-2016
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Sri Lanka
Keywords: Duty of applicant, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid, Manifestly unfounded application, Procedural guarantees
The lower court had erred in law by judging that the administration need not justify having informed the applicant about the possibility to communicate with a representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
Date: 08-06-2016
Country of Decision: France
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Effective access to procedures, Procedural guarantees, Reception conditions
The application was in three parts: the applicants asked the tribunal to annul the police commissioner’s decision on how the registration of asylum requests was carried out in Paris; to compel the police commissioner to re-examine the methods of registration; to fine the state €1500. The first two parts of the application were granted but the third was not.
Date: 25-05-2016
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Effective access to procedures filterEffective access to procedures
- Procedural guarantees 10
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 6
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 5
- Personal interview 5
- Reception conditions 5
- Dublin Transfer 4
- Effective remedy (right to) 4
- Material reception conditions 4
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 3
- Detention 3
- Individual assessment 3
- Subsequent application 3
- Vulnerable person 3
- Best interest of the child 2
- Delay 2
- Health (right to) 2
- Manifestly unfounded application 2
- Obligation to give reasons 2
- Refugee Status 2
- Relevant Documentation 2
- Request to take back 2
- Responsibility for examining application 2
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 2
- Unaccompanied minor 2
- Accommodation centre 1
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 1
- Child Specific Considerations 1
- Country of origin information 1
- Duty of applicant 1
- Freedom of movement (right to) 1
- Inadmissible application 1
- Indiscriminate violence 1
- Individual threat 1
- Internal armed conflict 1
- Membership of a particular social group 1
- Persecution (acts of) 1
- Political Opinion 1
- Protection 1
- Real risk 1
- Relevant Facts 1
- Request that charge be taken 1
- Subsidiary Protection 1
- Trafficking in human beings 1
- Visa 1
- Well-founded fear 1
Filter by country of applicant
Filter by country of decision
- (-) Remove France filterFrance
