You are here
Home › Effective remedy (right to) ›EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Nigeria
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Dublin Transfer, Effective remedy (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Reception conditions, Responsibility for examining application, Trafficking in human beings, Vulnerable person
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.
Date: 09-11-2018
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Effective remedy (right to), Refugee Status, Subsidiary Protection
The CJEU ruled on whether an individual could appeal a decision which refused refugee status but granted subsidiary protection status, even if the rights and benefits afforded by each international protection status are identical in national law.
Date: 18-10-2018
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Unaccompanied minor
The Court of Appeal found the "one-off" expedited procedure in place from 2016-2017 in Calais for unaccompanied children with family members, siblings or relatives in the UK and operated by the British and French authorities to fall below the requirements of procedural fairness as a matter of common law.
Date: 31-07-2018
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Delay, Effective remedy (right to), Personal interview, Procedural guarantees
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...
Date: 11-07-2018
Country of Decision: France
Keywords: Delay, Detention, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Procedural guarantees
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.
Date: 01-06-2018
Country of Applicant: Sudan
Keywords: Access to the labour market, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Material reception conditions, Reception conditions, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Torture
The possibility to lodge an asylum application in practice is a prerequisite for the effective protection of those in need of international protection. If access to the asylum procedure is not guaranteed by the national authorities, asylum applicants cannot benefit from the guarantees afforded to those under the asylum procedure, leaving them subject to detention at any time. The length of time in which it took for the applicant to lodge his asylum application violated his rights under Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 3 ECHR.
Date: 15-03-2018
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Detention, Effective remedy (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Real risk
The Court indicated interim measures (under Rule 39) to Russia after the order of removal of a Syrian national who applied for asylum after the expiry of his student visa. Subsequently, the applicant applied to the Court against the Russian Federation claiming that Russia had breached his rights under Articles 2, 3, 5(1)(f) and 5(4) of the Convention.
Date: 27-02-2018
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Sudan
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Unaccompanied minor, Vulnerable person
The refusal of an entry decision given to an unaccompanied child at the Franco-Italian border is manifestly unlawful and constitutes a severe breach of the applicant’s interest.
Date: 23-02-2018
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Accommodation centre, Detention, Effective remedy (right to), Health (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid, Material reception conditions
The ECtHR ruled that there had not been a violation of Article 5(1) ECHR in the applicant’s detention at the VIAL hotspot, a day after the entry into force of the EU-Turkey Statement. It also ruled that the threshold of severity required for their detention conditions to be considered as inhuman or degrading treatment had not been reached.
However, the ECtHR found that Greece violated the applicant’s rights under Article 5(2) by not providing them with detailed, understandable information about the reasons for their detention and the remedies...
Date: 25-01-2018
Country of Applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Best interest of the child, Detention, Effective remedy (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Return
The applicants although minors were detained in a detention facility where they were mixed with adults. The detention lasted until the Maltese government determined (in a process that took 8 months) that they were minors.
Moreover, the harsh conditions in the detention facilities amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment.
Date: 09-01-2018
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
- ECrtHR Case law 111
- National Case law 106
- CJEU Case law 15
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Effective remedy (right to) filterEffective remedy (right to)
- Effective access to procedures 87
- Detention 84
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 74
- Procedural guarantees 55
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 41
- Return 39
- Refugee Status 36
- Dublin Transfer 35
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 24
- Reception conditions 24
- Material reception conditions 20
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 19
- Non-refoulement 19
- Personal interview 18
- Real risk 18
- Accelerated procedure 16
- Request to take back 16
- Responsibility for examining application 16
- Well-founded fear 16
- Credibility assessment 15
- Delay 15
- Country of origin information 12
- Safe third country 12
- Subsidiary Protection 12
- Individual assessment 11
- Political Opinion 11
- Subsequent application 10
- Torture 10
- Persecution (acts of) 9
- Access to the labour market 8
- Burden of proof 8
- Final decision 8
- Health (right to) 8
- Membership of a particular social group 8
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 8
- Personal circumstances of applicant 8
- Protection 8
- Country of origin 7
- Inadmissible application 7
- Vulnerable person 7
- Best interest of the child 6
- Family unity (right to) 6
- Manifestly unfounded application 6
- Nationality 6
- Obligation to give reasons 6
- Previous persecution 6
- Relevant Facts 6
- Safe country of origin 6
- Unaccompanied minor 6
- Accommodation centre 5
- Child Specific Considerations 5
- Discrimination 5
- Indirect refoulement 5
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 5
- Race 5
- Relevant Documentation 5
- Terrorism 5
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 4
- Family member 4
- Religion 4
- Standard of proof 4
- Benefit of doubt 3
- Death penalty / Execution 3
- Duty of applicant 3
- First country of asylum 3
- Gender Based Persecution 3
- Humanitarian considerations 3
- Individual threat 3
- Internal armed conflict 3
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 3
- Request that charge be taken 3
- Trafficking in human beings 3
- Actors of protection 2
- Armed conflict 2
- Exclusion from protection 2
- Family reunification 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
- Freedom of movement (right to) 1
- International armed conflict 1
- War crimes 1
- Withdrawal of protection application 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 21
- Iran 21
- Nigeria 12
- Iraq 10
- Syria 10
- Russia 9
- Somalia 8
- Turkey 8
- Unknown 8
- Sudan 7
- Eritrea 6
- Morocco 6
- Pakistan 6
- Georgia 5
- Tunisia 5
- Algeria 4
- China 4
- Congo (DRC) 4
- Lebanon 4
- Armenia 3
- Bulgaria 3
- Guinea 3
- Ivory Coast 3
- Kazakhstan 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
- Gambia 2
- Jordan 2
- Kyrgyzstan 2
- Mali 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
- France 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 11
- Poland 10
- France 6
- Netherlands 6
- Belgium 5
- Slovenia 5
- Spain 5
- United Kingdom 5
- Hungary 4
- Italy 4
- Finland 2
- Greece 2
- Luxembourg 2
- Slovakia 2
- Sweden 2
- Cyprus 1
- Czech Republic 1
- Switzerland 1
