You are here
Home › Accommodation centre ›EDAL case summaries
In three conjoined judicial reviews concerning the legality of the Home Secretary’s exercise of her power under paragraph 9 of Schedule 10 of the Immigration Act 2016 to provide accommodation to those who are granted immigration bail, it was held that each of the three claimants had been unlawfully denied such accommodation, and that the relevant policy was systemically unfair.
1. A change of the destination country in a return decision by an administrative authority should be regarded as a new return decision requiring an effective remedy in compliance with Article 47 CFREU.
2. The national legislation providing for a safe transit country ground applicable in the present case is contrary to EU law.
3. The obligation imposed on a third-country national to remain permanently in a closed and limited transit zone, within which their movement is limited and monitored, and which the latter cannot...
The High Court has issued a judgment following an application for an interim order. The matter concerns the accommodation of asylum-seekers who display Covid-19 symptoms, who bears the responsibility for accommodating asylum-seekers who are symptomatic, and the communication of policy and practice in this area.
Given the emergency of the situation, family reunification could only be refused in circumstances where the relevant individual does not comply with principles of public order.
As a result, the Court concluded that there were serious doubts as to the legality of the decisions refusing family reunification.
The Court concluded on the immediate release of an Egyptian national from detention. The judgment referred to the detention conditions for vulnerable persons that suffer from serious health conditions during the Covid-19 pandemic.
In view of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Swiss authorities should obtain formal and detailed guarantees on care and accommodation from the Italian authorities before transferring families and vulnerable persons to Italy under the Dublin III Regulation.
This is because Decree-law 113/218 on Public safety and Immigration in Italy has deeply reformed the Italian refugee reception system.
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.
When a refugee and their child apply for international protection, the Police Headquarters shall not make residence or parental relationship the conditions for submitting their application.
Foreign asylum seekers without employment have a right to be exempted from the payment of health care contributions under Art. 8(16) of Law No. 537/1993, irrespective of whether they are seeking a job for the first time or have worked in the past. The entitlement to this benefit depends solely on the condition of “non-employment” under Art. 19(1), (2) and (7) of Legislative Decree 150/2015 and to the declaration by the non-employed individual of their availability to work. Denying this benefit to jobless asylum seekers amounts to discrimination.
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Accommodation centre filterAccommodation centre
- Reception conditions 15
- Material reception conditions 13
- Detention 9
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 9
- Vulnerable person 9
- Procedural guarantees 7
- Access to the labour market 6
- Dublin Transfer 6
- Effective remedy (right to) 6
- Health (right to) 6
- Unaccompanied minor 6
- Best interest of the child 5
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 5
- Safe third country 5
- Effective access to procedures 4
- Refugee Status 4
- Country of origin information 3
- Credibility assessment 3
- Delay 3
- Integration measures 3
- Return 3
- Subsidiary Protection 3
- Burden of proof 2
- Child Specific Considerations 2
- Family member 2
- Family reunification 2
- Family unity (right to) 2
- Inadmissible application 2
- Individual assessment 2
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 2
- Membership of a particular social group 2
- Obligation to give reasons 2
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 2
- Real risk 2
- Request that charge be taken 2
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 1
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 1
- Duty of applicant 1
- Education (right to) 1
- First country of asylum 1
- Freedom of movement (right to) 1
- Gender Based Persecution 1
- Humanitarian considerations 1
- Internal armed conflict 1
- Internal protection 1
- More favourable provisions 1
- Non-refoulement 1
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 1
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 1
- Persecution (acts of) 1
- Personal circumstances of applicant 1
- Personal interview 1
- Previous persecution 1
- Protection 1
- Relevant Documentation 1
- Request to take back 1
- Residence document 1
- Responsibility for examining application 1
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 1
- Safe country of origin 1
- Sexual orientation 1
- Standard of proof 1
- Subsequent application 1
- Torture 1
- Visa 1
- Well-founded fear 1
Filter by country of applicant
Filter by country of decision
- United Kingdom 5
- France 4
- Belgium 3
- Ireland 3
- Spain 3
- Italy 2
- Germany 1
- Greece 1
- Switzerland 1