You are here
Home › Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ›EDAL case summaries
Country of Applicant: Bangladesh
Keywords: Accelerated procedure, Detention, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Procedural guarantees, Safe third country
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...
Date: 21-11-2019
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Detention, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Material reception conditions, Reception conditions, Torture, Unaccompanied minor, Vulnerable person
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.
Date: 13-06-2019
Country of Decision: Italy
Country of Applicant: Ghana, Sudan
Keywords: Detention, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Non-refoulement, Real risk, Safe third country, Torture
The Court recognised self-defence in a case where migrants were charged with assault against a police officer following their rescue at sea and their impending return to Libya. Their well-founded fear of return to Libya provided the basis for their defence of duress.
Date: 23-05-2019
Country of Applicant: Iran
Keywords: Country of origin information, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Return, Serious harm, Well-founded fear
Extradition to Iran to face criminal charges would risk a violation of Article 3 due to possible exposure to flogging under Iranian penal law.
Date: 04-04-2019
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: Tajikistan, Uzbekistan
Keywords: Country of origin, Detention, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Real risk, Return, Torture
Russia had failed to substantially and effectively examine the repeated claims of the applicants that their extradition would constitute a violation of Article 3 ECHR. Given the current situation in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan and the individual circumstances of the applicants, a number of violations were found.
Date: 23-10-2018
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Congo (Republic of)
Keywords: Country of origin, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Real risk, Refugee Status, Return, Subsidiary Protection
The French National Court on Asylum has made an error of law by refusing to grant at the very least subsidiary protection to the applicant following his new request to re-examine his situation, despite a condemnation from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) for the violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Date: 03-10-2018
Country of Applicant: Congo (DRC)
Keywords: Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Material reception conditions, Refugee sur place, Vulnerable person
The Court examines the individuals’ circumstances and finds that the appointment with the French authorities to register and assess their asylum cases within a three-month period, coupled with the possibility for the applicants to stay in a foster home at night, access education, healthcare and meals provided by organisations during the day, cannot amount to treatment prohibited under the Convention.
Date: 24-08-2018
Country of Decision: Switzerland
Country of Applicant: Eritrea
Keywords: Crime against humanity, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Persecution Grounds/Reasons
The judgment deals with the admissibility of the execution of an expulsion order of an Eritrean who illegally left the country. Despite the assumption that the entry into the national service in the country of origin constitutes forced labour within the meaning of Art. 4 para. 2 ECHR, enforcement is permissible since there was no flagrant violation of Art. 4 para. 2 ECHR.
Date: 10-07-2018
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Detention, Dublin Transfer, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
Following on from a Rule 39 measure from the European Court of Human Rights preventing the transfer of the applicant to Bulgaria under the Dublin Regulation, the Tribunal ordered the police prefect to register the applicant's claim for asylum in France.
Date: 06-07-2018
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
- National Case law 138
- ECrtHR Case law 118
- CJEU Case law 6
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment filterInhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Detention 77
- Effective remedy (right to) 76
- Dublin Transfer 56
- Refugee Status 48
- Return 48
- Effective access to procedures 47
- Real risk 44
- Subsidiary Protection 43
- Reception conditions 40
- Torture 33
- Procedural guarantees 32
- Non-refoulement 31
- Country of origin information 30
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 29
- Vulnerable person 29
- Material reception conditions 28
- Personal circumstances of applicant 27
- Serious harm 25
- Well-founded fear 25
- Credibility assessment 23
- Political Opinion 23
- Responsibility for examining application 23
- Individual assessment 22
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 21
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 19
- Individual threat 18
- Membership of a particular social group 18
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 16
- Burden of proof 16
- Country of origin 16
- Internal protection 16
- Persecution (acts of) 16
- Humanitarian considerations 14
- Health (right to) 13
- Previous persecution 13
- Protection 13
- Safe third country 13
- Child Specific Considerations 12
- Gender Based Persecution 12
- Religion 12
- Request to take back 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
- Accelerated procedure 9
- Accommodation centre 8
- First country of asylum 8
- Request that charge be taken 8
- Armed conflict 7
- Benefit of doubt 7
- Best interest of the child 7
- Internal armed conflict 7
- Personal interview 7
- Safe country of origin 7
- Subsequent application 7
- Unaccompanied minor 7
- Access to the labour market 6
- Female genital mutilation 6
- Indirect refoulement 6
- Refugee sur place 6
- Terrorism 6
- Exclusion from protection 5
- Relevant Facts 5
- Trafficking in human beings 5
- Death penalty / Execution 4
- Inadmissible application 4
- Manifestly unfounded application 4
- Nationality 4
- Relevant Documentation 4
- Revocation of protection status 4
- Actors of protection 3
- Delay 3
- Family member 3
- Final decision 3
- Integration measures 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
- Serious non-political crime 2
- Sexual orientation 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
- Residence document 1
- Stateless person 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 38
- Iran 22
- Iraq 17
- Somalia 16
- Sudan 16
- Syria 14
- Eritrea 12
- Russia (Chechnya) 10
- Sri Lanka 9
- Algeria 7
- Russia 7
- Turkey 7
- Uzbekistan 6
- Congo (DRC) 5
- Kyrgyzstan 5
- Palestinian Territory 5
- Tunisia 5
- Georgia 4
- Kosovo 4
- Nigeria 4
- Pakistan 4
- Bangladesh 3
- Cameroon 3
- Guinea 3
- Morocco 3
- Serbia 3
- Sierra Leone 3
- Unknown 3
- Armenia 2
- China (Tibet) 2
- Ethiopia 2
- India 2
- Jordan 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
- Ghana 1
- Guinea-Bissau 1
- Ivory Coast 1
- Kazakhstan 1
- Kenya 1
- Lebanon 1
- Mali 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
- Austria 10
- Greece 10
- Belgium 9
- Hungary 8
- Finland 6
- Slovenia 5
- Italy 4
- Sweden 4
- Czech Republic 3
- Denmark 2
- Ireland 2
- Netherlands 2
- Poland 2
- Spain 2
- Switzerland 2
- Slovakia 1
