You are here
Home › 2019 ›EDAL case summaries
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...
In order to guarantee that an applicant for international protection has an effective judicial remedy within the meaning of Article 47 of the Charter, a national court or tribunal is required to vary a decision of the first-instance determining body that does not comply with its previous judgment. The court or tribunal must substitute its own decision on the application for international protection by disapplying, if necessary, the national law that prohibits it from proceeding in that way.
Detention within the context of immigration must be lawful, not arbitrary and carried out in good faith. In this sense, the depriavation of liberty without a realistic prospect of removal is against the prevision of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
Detention conditions in Greek police stations and living conditions in Idomeni Camp in northern Greece for five unaccompanied children were in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. A further violation was found in respect of Article 5 § 1 regarding the “protective custody” of unaccompanied children in police stations.
Extradition to Iran to face criminal charges would risk a violation of Article 3 due to possible exposure to flogging under Iranian penal law.
Residence permits obtained in the context of family reunification and long-term resident status, under Directives 2003/86 and 2003/109, may be withdrawn if they were issued on the basis of falsified documents, even if the holders were unaware of the fraud committed.
The precarious living conditions in Calais and the failure of the French authorities to comply with judicial orders to protect the applicant, in view of his personal circumstances and young age, reach the threshold for a breach of Article 3.
Delays in the asylum procedure which cannot be imputed to the asylum seeker, and failure to consider less coercive alternatives when detention exceeds reasonable time limits, render detention unlawful.
The notification about the intention of withdrawal from the EU by the Member-State responsible for the examination of the application for international protection does not trigger the determining Member-State’s obligation to make use of the discretionary clause of Article 17(1) 604/2013 EU. Similarly, Article 6 (1) cannot be interpreted as imposing an obligation on the Member State that is not responsible to take into account the best interests of the child and to examine the application itself under 17 (1)
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- Best interest of the child 4
- Detention 4
- Material reception conditions 3
- Reception conditions 3
- Unaccompanied minor 3
- Vulnerable person 3
- Accommodation centre 2
- Child Specific Considerations 2
- Delay 2
- Effective access to procedures 2
- Effective remedy (right to) 2
- Family reunification 2
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 2
- Return 2
- Safe third country 2
- Accelerated procedure 1
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 1
- Country of origin information 1
- Dublin Transfer 1
- Duty of applicant 1
- Final decision 1
- Health (right to) 1
- Procedural guarantees 1
- Refugee Status 1
- Residence document 1
- Responsibility for examining application 1
- Serious harm 1
- Well-founded fear 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 3
- Bangladesh 1
- China 1
- Georgia 1
- Iran 1
- Russia 1
- Syria 1
Filter by country of decision
- Cyprus 1