You are here
Home › Non-refoulement ›EDAL case summaries
The ECtHR ruled that failure to allow a Russian family with five children to submit asylum applications on the Lithuanian border and their removal to Belarus amounted to a violation of Article 3 ECHR.
Article 3 has not been violated in a case concerning the deportation of an individual who had been convicted of a terrorism-related charge to Morocco. However the ECtHR acknowledges that ill-treatment and torture by the police and the security forces still occur, particularly in the case of persons suspected of terrorism or of endangering State security.
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-...
The State Secretary for Security and Justice rejects an application for temporary asylum residence permits by two Syrian minors based on the finding that Lebanon is a Safe Third Country for the applicants. The Court of The Hague rules that the State Secretary failed to sufficiently motivate his decision, as article 3.106a(1)(e) of the Aliens Decree was not taken into account.
The case concerned an application for judicial review of the decisions made on behalf of the Secretary of State to transfer the applicants to Malta, on the basis that such jurisdiction was the proper place for considering the applicants’ asylum claims. The applicants argued that such transfer would violate their rights under Article 18 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union (EU Charter) to have their asylum application determined within a reasonable time and on the basis of a fair procedure, as the Maltese asylum system had several shortcomings and contains...
The Constitutional Court ruled that Member States are obliged to examine all circumstances which are important from the perspective of the principle of non-refoulement, when deciding on a Dublin transfer to a responsible Member State. Due to the absolute nature of the protection afforded by the principle of non-refoulement, the assessment must take into account all the circumstances of the particular case, including the applicant's personal situation in the transferring country. In this context, it should also be assessed whether the mere removal of an individual to another country due to...
Asylum seekers cannot be rejected at the border crossing without having the possibility to state reasons for obtaining international protection as well as a precise indication of reasons for the refusal of entry on the entry form. An assessment of the submitted reasons for asylum cannot only depend on an assessment by an interpreter, but must be decided through the responsible authority or court.
The case considered an application against the decision of the Secretary of State refusing to consider the merits of the Claimants’ contentions for asylum, on the basis that Hungary was considered to be a “safe” country that would presumably comply with its EU and international legal obligations. The Claimants argued that they would be at risk of refoulement to Iran if removed to Hungary, in breach of their rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Claimants further argued that along the way, they would be at risk of detention in conditions and...
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Non-refoulement filterNon-refoulement
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 29
- Effective remedy (right to) 19
- Refugee Status 19
- Subsidiary Protection 17
- Torture 17
- Dublin Transfer 16
- Effective access to procedures 16
- Return 16
- Safe third country 15
- Procedural guarantees 14
- Real risk 14
- Detention 13
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 13
- Subsequent application 12
- Well-founded fear 12
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 11
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 11
- Responsibility for examining application 11
- Serious harm 11
- Country of origin information 10
- Protection 10
- Credibility assessment 9
- Persecution (acts of) 8
- Political Opinion 8
- Final decision 7
- Indirect refoulement 7
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 7
- Request to take back 7
- Terrorism 7
- Accelerated procedure 6
- Exclusion from protection 6
- Humanitarian considerations 6
- Personal circumstances of applicant 6
- Reception conditions 6
- Refugee sur place 6
- Country of origin 5
- First country of asylum 5
- Individual assessment 5
- Individual threat 5
- Standard of proof 5
- Burden of proof 4
- Inadmissible application 4
- Manifestly unfounded application 4
- Material reception conditions 4
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 4
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 4
- Access to the labour market 3
- Membership of a particular social group 3
- Relevant Facts 3
- Religion 3
- Residence document 3
- Revocation of protection status 3
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 2
- Armed conflict 2
- Benefit of doubt 2
- Crime against humanity 2
- Indiscriminate violence 2
- Internal protection 2
- Nationality 2
- Obligation to give reasons 2
- Previous persecution 2
- Relevant Documentation 2
- Request that charge be taken 2
- Safe country of origin 2
- Serious non-political crime 2
- Stateless person 2
- Vulnerable person 2
- Withdrawal of protection application 2
- Accommodation centre 1
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 1
- Best interest of the child 1
- Child Specific Considerations 1
- Circumstances ceased to exist 1
- Country of former habitual residence 1
- Death penalty / Execution 1
- Discrimination 1
- Duty of applicant 1
- Family unity (right to) 1
- Freedom of movement (right to) 1
- Health (right to) 1
- Personal interview 1
- Trafficking in human beings 1
- Unaccompanied minor 1
- War crimes 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 11
- Turkey 10
- Iran 9
- Nigeria 7
- Syria 7
- Russia 5
- Sudan 5
- Tunisia 5
- Iraq 4
- Morocco 4
- Algeria 2
- Eritrea 2
- Palestinian Territory 2
- Russia (Chechnya) 2
- Somalia 2
- Azerbaijan 1
- Bangladesh 1
- Belarus 1
- Cameroon 1
- China (Tibet) 1
- Congo (DRC) 1
- Cuba 1
- Gambia 1
- Georgia 1
- Guinea 1
- Kazakhstan 1
- Mali 1
- Serbia 1
- South Africa 1
- Sri Lanka 1
- Togo 1
- Ukraine 1
- Unknown 1
- Western Sahara 1
Filter by country of decision
- Germany 9
- Hungary 8
- United Kingdom 7
- Czech Republic 6
- Greece 6
- Austria 5
- Sweden 5
- Ireland 4
- Slovenia 4
- Spain 4
- Finland 2
- Italy 2
- Netherlands 2
- Belgium 1
- Poland 1
- Switzerland 1