You are here
Home › Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ›EDAL case summaries
National authorities are best placed to assess the credibility of asylum claimants.
The ill-treatment of people of non-Arab ethnic origin in Sudan is not systematic. Therefore, when the personal circumstances of an applicant that may create a risk of persecution are insufficiently substantiated, the applicant’s removal to Sudan will not give rise to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
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 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 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.
In view of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Swiss authorities should obtain formal and detailed guarantees on care and accommodation from the Italian authorities before transferring families and vulnerable persons to Italy under the Dublin III Regulation.
This is because Decree-law 113/218 on Public safety and Immigration in Italy has deeply reformed the Italian refugee reception system.
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.
Conditions in police stations do not justify prolonged detention, while the child’s extreme vulnerability should prevail over irregular status with necessary measures adopted to protect them. Domestic authorities had not done all that could reasonably expected to fulfil their obligation in light of their vulnerability.
The authorities violated Article 5 by automatically applying the protective custody regime, without considering any alternatives to detention or the requirement under EU law to avoid the detention of children.
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
- National Case law 143
- ECrtHR Case law 120
- CJEU Case law 7
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment filterInhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Effective remedy (right to) 77
- Detention 76
- Dublin Transfer 57
- Return 51
- Refugee Status 49
- Effective access to procedures 46
- Real risk 45
- Subsidiary Protection 44
- Reception conditions 41
- Torture 34
- Non-refoulement 32
- Vulnerable person 32
- Country of origin information 31
- Procedural guarantees 31
- Material reception conditions 30
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 30
- Personal circumstances of applicant 27
- Well-founded fear 27
- Serious harm 25
- Credibility assessment 24
- Individual assessment 24
- Political Opinion 24
- Responsibility for examining application 23
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 21
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 19
- Membership of a particular social group 19
- Burden of proof 18
- Individual threat 18
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 17
- Internal protection 17
- Country of origin 16
- Persecution (acts of) 16
- Child Specific Considerations 14
- Humanitarian considerations 14
- Protection 14
- Gender Based Persecution 13
- Health (right to) 13
- Previous persecution 13
- Religion 12
- Request to take back 12
- Safe third country 12
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 11
- Discrimination 11
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 11
- Race 11
- Standard of proof 11
- Family unity (right to) 10
- Indiscriminate violence 10
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 10
- Accommodation centre 9
- Best interest of the child 9
- Internal armed conflict 9
- Accelerated procedure 8
- Armed conflict 8
- First country of asylum 8
- Request that charge be taken 8
- Unaccompanied minor 8
- Access to the labour market 7
- Benefit of doubt 7
- Personal interview 7
- Safe country of origin 7
- Subsequent application 7
- Female genital mutilation 6
- Refugee sur place 6
- Relevant Facts 6
- Terrorism 6
- Exclusion from protection 5
- Indirect refoulement 5
- Relevant Documentation 5
- Trafficking in human beings 5
- Death penalty / Execution 4
- Inadmissible application 4
- Manifestly unfounded application 4
- Nationality 4
- Revocation of protection status 4
- Actors of protection 3
- Delay 3
- Family member 3
- Final decision 3
- Integration measures 3
- Sexual orientation 3
- Visa 3
- Crime against humanity 2
- Dependant (Dependent person) 2
- Family reunification 2
- International armed conflict 2
- More favourable provisions 2
- Obligation to give reasons 2
- Residence document 2
- Serious non-political crime 2
- War crimes 2
- Withdrawal of protection application 2
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 1
- Circumstances ceased to exist 1
- Stateless person 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 40
- Iran 22
- Sudan 17
- Iraq 16
- Somalia 15
- Syria 14
- Eritrea 12
- Russia (Chechnya) 12
- Sri Lanka 9
- Russia 8
- Turkey 8
- Algeria 7
- Uzbekistan 6
- Congo (DRC) 5
- Kyrgyzstan 5
- Nigeria 5
- Georgia 4
- Kosovo 4
- Pakistan 4
- Palestinian Territory 4
- Tunisia 4
- Cameroon 3
- Guinea 3
- Morocco 3
- Serbia 3
- Sierra Leone 3
- Unknown 3
- Armenia 2
- Bangladesh 2
- China (Tibet) 2
- Ethiopia 2
- Ghana 2
- India 2
- Ivory Coast 2
- Jordan 2
- Mali 2
- Tajikistan 2
- Albania 1
- Angola 1
- Belarus 1
- Bhutan 1
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 1
- China 1
- Congo (Republic of) 1
- Croatia 1
- Cyprus 1
- Ecuador 1
- Egypt 1
- France 1
- Gambia 1
- Germany 1
- Guinea-Bissau 1
- Kazakhstan 1
- Kenya 1
- Lebanon 1
- Mauritania 1
- Mongolia 1
- Rwanda 1
- Senegal 1
- Tanzania 1
- Ukraine 1
- Western Sahara 1
- Zimbabwe 1
Filter by country of decision
- France 27
- Germany 22
- United Kingdom 17
- Greece 12
- Austria 10
- Belgium 9
- Hungary 8
- Finland 6
- Slovenia 5
- Italy 4
- Sweden 4
- Switzerland 4
- Czech Republic 3
- Poland 3
- Denmark 2
- Ireland 2
- Netherlands 2
- Spain 2
- Slovakia 1