You are here
Home › Effective remedy (right to) ›EDAL case summaries
The standardised nature of the questions to the applicants and similarities in the responses recorded do not necessarily indicate a lack of individualised assessment. The applicants were not deprived of an opportunity to submit arguments against their expulsion and did not make any claim of persecution risks in their country of origin. No collective expulsion under Article 4 Protocol 4 has been established.
Similarly, no violation of Article 4 Protocol 4 in conjunction with Article 13 has been established, as the claim cannot be considered...
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.
The Court found no violation of the Convention given that the applicants would have had access to a genuine and effective possibility of submitting arguments against their expulsion had they entered lawfully into Spain – they did not have any “cogent reasons” for not using the border procedures available at designated entry points. As such, the lack of an individualised procedure for their removal was the consequence of their own conduct.
The administrative detention of an Afghan national was imposed on the basis of a procedural error due to the lack of relevant documentation and unjustified information by the French authorities (Prefect and Prosecutor).
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...
The Court ruled that the material conditions of detention exceeded Article 3 ECHR threshold and that the detention of children in such conditions, even for short periods, is also contrary to that Article. It also held that the complaint procedures that were indeed available to the applicants were ineffective, amounting to a violation of Article 13 ECHR.
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.
The discretionary clause in Art. 17 II Dublin-III regulation might under certain circumstances oblige the member states to take charge of an applicant. This can be particularly the case, if the competence of the member state under chapter III of the Dublin-III regulation would not be given because of a deadline expiry the applicant had no influence on.
As a result of a transfer order to Italian authorities joined with house arrest, the applicant lodged an appeal. She argued she would be at risk of being exposed to inhuman and degrading treatments, as well as to systemic lapses of the Italian asylum system. In this case, the administrative tribunal granted annulment of those orders issued by the prefect of la Haute-Garonne in the light of the current Italian asylum conditions and the reasons motivating the applicant to reach France after having stayed in Italy.
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.
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
- National Case law 115
- ECrtHR Case law 114
- CJEU Case law 17
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Effective remedy (right to) filterEffective remedy (right to)
- Effective access to procedures 92
- Detention 88
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 77
- Procedural guarantees 60
- Return 46
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 44
- Refugee Status 37
- Dublin Transfer 35
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 26
- Reception conditions 25
- Material reception conditions 21
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 19
- Personal interview 19
- Real risk 19
- Non-refoulement 18
- Responsibility for examining application 17
- Accelerated procedure 16
- Credibility assessment 16
- Delay 16
- Request to take back 16
- Well-founded fear 16
- Country of origin information 13
- Safe third country 12
- Subsidiary Protection 12
- Individual assessment 11
- Political Opinion 11
- Subsequent application 10
- Torture 10
- Vulnerable person 10
- Access to the labour market 9
- Burden of proof 9
- Final decision 9
- Inadmissible application 9
- Persecution (acts of) 9
- Personal circumstances of applicant 9
- Health (right to) 8
- Membership of a particular social group 8
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 8
- Protection 8
- Best interest of the child 7
- Country of origin 7
- Family unity (right to) 7
- Safe country of origin 7
- Accommodation centre 6
- Child Specific Considerations 6
- Manifestly unfounded application 6
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 6
- Nationality 6
- Obligation to give reasons 6
- Previous persecution 6
- Relevant Documentation 6
- Relevant Facts 6
- Terrorism 6
- Unaccompanied minor 6
- Discrimination 5
- Family member 5
- Race 5
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 4
- Benefit of doubt 4
- Humanitarian considerations 4
- Indirect refoulement 4
- Religion 4
- Request that charge be taken 4
- Standard of proof 4
- Death penalty / Execution 3
- Duty of applicant 3
- Family reunification 3
- First country of asylum 3
- Gender Based Persecution 3
- Individual threat 3
- Internal armed conflict 3
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 3
- Trafficking in human beings 3
- Actors of protection 2
- Armed conflict 2
- Exclusion from protection 2
- Freedom of movement (right to) 2
- Indiscriminate violence 2
- Integration measures 2
- Internal protection 2
- More favourable provisions 2
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 2
- Refugee sur place 2
- Residence document 2
- Serious harm 2
- Visa 2
- Circumstances ceased to exist 1
- Crime against humanity 1
- Female genital mutilation 1
- International armed conflict 1
- Sponsor 1
- War crimes 1
- Withdrawal of protection application 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 23
- Iran 21
- Nigeria 13
- Russia 12
- Iraq 11
- Syria 11
- Unknown 10
- Somalia 8
- Turkey 8
- Sudan 7
- Eritrea 6
- Morocco 6
- Pakistan 6
- Algeria 5
- Georgia 5
- China 4
- Congo (DRC) 4
- Ivory Coast 4
- Lebanon 4
- Tunisia 4
- Armenia 3
- Bulgaria 3
- Guinea 3
- Kazakhstan 3
- Mali 3
- Palestinian Territory 3
- Russia (Chechnya) 3
- South Africa 3
- Sri Lanka 3
- Ukraine 3
- United Kingdom 3
- Belarus 2
- Botswana 2
- Brazil 2
- Egypt 2
- France 2
- Gambia 2
- Jordan 2
- Kyrgyzstan 2
- Rwanda 2
- Serbia 2
- Sierra Leone 2
- Uzbekistan 2
- Western Sahara 2
- Angola 1
- Bangladesh 1
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 1
- Burundi 1
- Cameroon 1
- Cyprus 1
- Ethiopia 1
- Germany 1
- Greece 1
- India 1
- Indonesia 1
- Liberia 1
- Malawi 1
- Mauritania 1
- Mongolia 1
- Philippines 1
- Romania 1
- Senegal 1
- Slovakia 1
- Tajikistan 1
- Tanzania 1
- Togo 1
- Vietnam 1
Filter by country of decision
- Ireland 19
- Austria 13
- Germany 12
- France 11
- Poland 10
- Italy 6
- Netherlands 6
- Spain 6
- Belgium 5
- Slovenia 5
- United Kingdom 5
- Hungary 4
- Finland 2
- Greece 2
- Luxembourg 2
- Slovakia 2
- Sweden 2
- Cyprus 1
- Czech Republic 1
- Switzerland 1