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.
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 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.
The case concerns the calculation of time limits for detention for the purpose of a Dublin transfer under Article 28 of the Dublin III Regulation (DRIII).
The Court held that detention is considered to be arbitrary within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 ECHR, if the length of the detention exceeds what is reasonable for the purpose pursued. It is to be examined whether the authorities have acted with ‘due diligence’.
In cases, such as the present, where the detention has been upheld for a long period, although lawfully, authorities are required to take additional steps in order to proceed with an asylum claim more speedily. When the detained person can be considered as ‘vulnerable’ a higher level of...
The reduction in the financial allowance available to child dependants of asylum seekers was not contrary to the requirement that the best interests of the child be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children.
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Delay filterDelay
- Procedural guarantees 18
- Detention 17
- Effective remedy (right to) 15
- Effective access to procedures 14
- Dublin Transfer 11
- Responsibility for examining application 8
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 7
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 5
- Best interest of the child 5
- Family unity (right to) 5
- Request that charge be taken 5
- Return 5
- Accelerated procedure 3
- Access to the labour market 3
- Accommodation centre 3
- First country of asylum 3
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 3
- Material reception conditions 3
- Obligation to give reasons 3
- Reception conditions 3
- Refugee Status 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
- Request to take back 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 5
- Germany 5
- Ireland 5
- United Kingdom 3
- Austria 2
- Cyprus 2
- Slovenia 2
- Czech Republic 1
- Italy 1
- Netherlands 1
- Spain 1
- Switzerland 1