You are here
Home › Detention ›EDAL case summaries
The governmental authority is requesting an authorization to detain an immigrant after an alleged infraction of article 53 of the Organic Law 4/2000 in order to guarantee the enforcement of a possible return procedure. Following the procedures detailed in article 62 of said law, the Court assessed the particular circumstances of the case, including the risk of nonappearance and the possible existence of previous administrative sanctions of the subject, concluding that the lack of roots in the Spanish territory and the fact that he already filled in an asylum application...
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.
The Court decided that the applicants’ arrest and detention were unlawful under Article 5 of the Convention. The eighth applicant’s complaint under Article 3 that she, a minor at the time, was not provided with adequate care in detention in connection with her pregnancy and the miscarriage she suffered was not accepted by the Court.
EU law does not preclude national legislation that allows an illegally staying third-country national to be detained in prison accommodation for removal, on the ground that he poses a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society or the internal or external security of the Member State concerned. The detainee should be kept separated from ordinary prisoners.
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 detention of children is, in principle, permitted under Article 5 ECHR for the shortest amount of time, in appropriate conditions and facilities, and only after the Government has correctly concluded that less coercive measures are unavailable.
The complaint of the applicants under Article 3 are manifestly unfounded.
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.
Due to the COVID-19 health crisis, and especially the cancellation of flights to the applicant’s country of origin, the continuation of immigration detention is no longer required because an effective return cannot be considered anymore as a reasonable perspective.
In the midst of the health crisis, the judge of liberty and detention of the Lille Judicial Tribunal considered that the health risk for the Applicant as well as for a third party, generated by the extension of the administrative detention was disproportionate to the perspectives of return. Especially since most countries had closed their borders.
As a result, the judge held that there was no reason to extend the duration of the Applicant’s detention.
The Judge of the liberty and detention of the Nice Judicial Tribunal declared irregular the procedure during which the applicant was notified of his administrative detention more than an hour after the end of his police interrogation.
The Judge considered that the deprivation of liberty during that time had no legal foundation.
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
- ECrtHR Case law 117
- National Case law 102
- CJEU Case law 16
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Detention filterDetention
- Effective remedy (right to) 88
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 76
- Return 68
- Effective access to procedures 53
- Refugee Status 40
- Dublin Transfer 37
- Reception conditions 37
- Procedural guarantees 35
- Material reception conditions 23
- Real risk 21
- Vulnerable person 20
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 19
- Best interest of the child 18
- Delay 17
- Well-founded fear 17
- Health (right to) 13
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 13
- Non-refoulement 13
- Responsibility for examining application 13
- Torture 13
- Accelerated procedure 12
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 12
- Unaccompanied minor 12
- Child Specific Considerations 11
- Access to the labour market 10
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 10
- Request to take back 10
- Safe third country 10
- Accommodation centre 9
- Individual assessment 9
- Political Opinion 9
- Burden of proof 8
- Country of origin 8
- Obligation to give reasons 8
- Persecution (acts of) 8
- Subsequent application 8
- Personal circumstances of applicant 7
- Relevant Documentation 7
- Relevant Facts 7
- Country of origin information 6
- Freedom of movement (right to) 6
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 6
- Personal interview 6
- Safe country of origin 6
- Terrorism 6
- Final decision 5
- Race 5
- Credibility assessment 4
- Discrimination 4
- Inadmissible application 4
- Indirect refoulement 4
- Nationality 4
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 4
- Religion 4
- Standard of proof 4
- Subsidiary Protection 4
- Duty of applicant 3
- Family member 3
- Family reunification 3
- Family unity (right to) 3
- First country of asylum 3
- Humanitarian considerations 3
- Previous persecution 3
- Protection 3
- Request that charge be taken 3
- Benefit of doubt 2
- Serious harm 2
- Sexual orientation 2
- Trafficking in human beings 2
- Withdrawal of protection application 2
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 1
- Armed conflict 1
- Crime against humanity 1
- Death penalty / Execution 1
- Dependant (Dependent person) 1
- Exclusion from protection 1
- Female genital mutilation 1
- Indiscriminate violence 1
- Individual threat 1
- Integration measures 1
- Internal armed conflict 1
- Manifestly unfounded application 1
- Membership of a particular social group 1
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 1
- Residence document 1
- Revocation of protection status 1
- Visa 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 24
- Iran 24
- Iraq 17
- Syria 14
- Turkey 13
- Russia 12
- Algeria 9
- Somalia 9
- Tunisia 8
- Unknown 8
- Morocco 7
- Pakistan 7
- Sudan 7
- Uzbekistan 6
- Georgia 5
- Palestinian Territory 5
- Sri Lanka 5
- Congo (DRC) 4
- Ghana 4
- Lebanon 4
- Albania 3
- Armenia 3
- Cameroon 3
- Egypt 3
- Ivory Coast 3
- Kyrgyzstan 3
- Nigeria 3
- Russia (Chechnya) 3
- Bangladesh 2
- Bulgaria 2
- Eritrea 2
- France 2
- Gambia 2
- Guinea 2
- Tajikistan 2
- Vietnam 2
- Angola 1
- Austria 1
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 1
- China 1
- Colombia 1
- Dominican Republic 1
- India 1
- Indonesia 1
- Jamaica 1
- Jordan 1
- Kazakhstan 1
- Kenya 1
- Kosovo 1
- Libya 1
- Poland 1
- Sierra Leone 1
- Slovakia 1
- South Africa 1
- Tanzania 1
- Ukraine 1
- United Kingdom 1
- United States 1
- Zimbabwe 1
Filter by country of decision
- France 20
- United Kingdom 18
- Netherlands 10
- Austria 8
- Greece 8
- Cyprus 5
- Czech Republic 5
- Poland 5
- Italy 4
- Switzerland 4
- Germany 3
- Slovenia 3
- Belgium 2
- Hungary 2
- Ireland 1
- Luxembourg 1
- Slovakia 1
- Spain 1
- Sweden 1