You are here
Home › Delay ›EDAL case summaries
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.
The difficulties in access to the regional telephone operating centers set up by the French Office for Immigration and Integration (OFII) in order to obtain an appointment to register asylum applications leads to legal uncertainty for asylum seekers. This legal uncertainty violates their constitutional right to asylum, and therefore creates an emergency situation on which the Urgent Applications Judge can adjudicate.
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 Constitutional Council decides on the constitutionality of the 48H limit under national law for a third-country national to appeal against an order to be escorted to the border. The Council found that the deadline is in line with the French Constitution, as it guarantees the right to an effective remedy.
The Council of State decided on the date from which the 6-month time limit provided by Article 29§1 of the Dublin regulation 604/2013 begins running or when it starts running again in case of an interruption. At the expiry of this deadline, the responsibility of the examination of an asylum claim falls back to the Member State which requested another Member State that charge be taken or to take back, as it did not proceed to the applicant’s transfer. The Council specified that this deadline starts running once the other Member State has accepted the request that charge be taken or...
The Federal Administrative Court has to clarify whether the petition for action directed solely at the obligation to decide on the asylum application is admissible. The question if it is also possible to directly oblige the defendant to grant international protection or to establish prohibitions on deportation by means of an action is not the subject of the decision. As a result, the court comes to the conclusion that there was a delay by the respondent of providing the decision on the asylum application without sufficient reason and that the plaintiff has a need for...
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.
The Council of State grants the appeal lodged by the Minister of the Interior, who asked for the annulment of the order issued by the administrative tribunal’s relief judge. The latter had suspended not only the execution of the decision refusing to register M. A…’s asylum application, but also the execution regarding his transfer, by ruling ultra petita. After qualifying M. A…’s non-attendance to the repeated notifications sent for the purpose of his transfer as being intentional and systematic, the Council of State concludes in this case that no violation was found against M. A...
The Federal Administrative Court changed its jurisprudence concerning those competence provisions of the Dublin-III-Regulation that can be challenged with a complaint against a decision not to take charge. The Court follows the approach taken by the CJEU in Ghezelbash (C-63/15) and Mengesteab (C-670/16) and allows complaints based on missing the term to request another Member State to take charge (Article 21(1) Dublin-III-Regulation). If successful, the Member State responsible for requesting to take charge will, itself, be in charge to deal with the asylum application...
Concerning the criteria of “filing the application” in § 75 S. 2 VwGO, the informal request for asylum according to § 13 AsylG must be taken into consideration as the relevant date and not the formal lodging of the application according to § 14 AsylG when the Federal Office fails to provide an opportunity to lodge an application. Otherwise, the work overload that the Federal Office is facing, would be a detriment for the applicant, both concerning the scheduling for the formal application and concerning the examination of the application.
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Delay filterDelay
- Procedural guarantees 20
- Detention 17
- Effective access to procedures 16
- Effective remedy (right to) 16
- Dublin Transfer 12
- Responsibility for examining application 8
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 8
- Return 6
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 5
- Best interest of the child 5
- Family unity (right to) 5
- Request that charge be taken 5
- First country of asylum 4
- Accelerated procedure 3
- Access to the labour market 3
- Accommodation centre 3
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 3
- Material reception conditions 3
- Obligation to give reasons 3
- Reception conditions 3
- Refugee Status 3
- Request to take back 3
- Subsidiary Protection 3
- Burden of proof 2
- Country of origin information 2
- Credibility assessment 2
- Education (right to) 2
- Family member 2
- Health (right to) 2
- Humanitarian considerations 2
- Individual assessment 2
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 2
- Personal interview 2
- Relevant Facts 2
- Safe third country 2
- Standard of proof 2
- Subsequent application 2
- Unaccompanied minor 2
- Well-founded fear 2
- Benefit of doubt 1
- Child Specific Considerations 1
- Country of origin 1
- Crime against humanity 1
- Discrimination 1
- Duty of applicant 1
- Family reunification 1
- Final decision 1
- Inadmissible application 1
- Indirect refoulement 1
- Indiscriminate violence 1
- Integration measures 1
- Manifestly unfounded application 1
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 1
- Nationality 1
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 1
- Persecution (acts of) 1
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 1
- Personal circumstances of applicant 1
- Political Opinion 1
- Race 1
- Real risk 1
- Relevant Documentation 1
- Serious harm 1
- Temporary protection 1
- Torture 1
- Visa 1
- Vulnerable person 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
Filter by country of decision
- France 8
- Germany 5
- Ireland 5
- United Kingdom 3
- Austria 2
- Cyprus 2
- Slovenia 2
- Czech Republic 1
- Italy 1
- Netherlands 1
- Spain 1
- Switzerland 1