You are here
Home › Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ›EDAL case summaries
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...
Extradition to Iran to face criminal charges would risk a violation of Article 3 due to possible exposure to flogging under Iranian penal law.
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.
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.
The request submitted by the Italian authorities to Norway to take back the applicant would imply his immediate repatriation to his country of origin, Afghanistan, which, in the light of the Court’s reasoning, is not to be considered a safe country.
The complainant, an Eritrean citizen and a single woman with a one-and-a-half-year-old child, filed a complaint against the decision of the Danish Immigration Service to reject her application in accordance with the Danish Aliens Act art. 29 (b) as the Greek authorities had granted her refugee status in Greece, valid until 25 November 2017. The complainant referred to the UNHCR EXCOM-conclusion no. 58/1989.
The Board did not find that the general social and economic conditions for refugees with a residence permit in Greece – although difficult – in itself could lead to the...
The exhaustion of domestic remedies is a prerequisite for the admissibility of applications lodged with the ECtHR under Article 35 ECHR. Removal of individuals suffering from severe medical problems may not be considered inhumane in the meaning of Article 3 ECHR, when suitable treatment exists in the country of origin.
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.
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...
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.
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
- National Case law 131
- ECrtHR Case law 113
- 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
- Effective remedy (right to) 75
- Detention 74
- Dublin Transfer 54
- Effective access to procedures 47
- Refugee Status 46
- Return 43
- Subsidiary Protection 41
- Real risk 39
- Reception conditions 39
- Procedural guarantees 32
- Torture 30
- Country of origin information 29
- Non-refoulement 29
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 27
- Material reception conditions 26
- Personal circumstances of applicant 26
- Vulnerable person 26
- Serious harm 25
- Well-founded fear 25
- Political Opinion 22
- Credibility assessment 21
- Responsibility for examining application 21
- Individual assessment 20
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 20
- Individual threat 18
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 18
- Membership of a particular social group 17
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 16
- Burden of proof 16
- Internal protection 16
- Persecution (acts of) 16
- Country of origin 14
- Humanitarian considerations 14
- Health (right to) 13
- Previous persecution 13
- Protection 13
- Religion 12
- Request to take back 12
- Safe third country 12
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 11
- Child Specific Considerations 11
- Gender Based Persecution 11
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 11
- Race 11
- Discrimination 10
- Family unity (right to) 10
- Indiscriminate violence 10
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 10
- Standard of proof 10
- Accelerated procedure 9
- Accommodation centre 8
- Armed conflict 7
- Benefit of doubt 7
- Best interest of the child 7
- First country of asylum 7
- Internal armed conflict 7
- Personal interview 7
- Request that charge be taken 7
- Subsequent application 7
- Access to the labour market 6
- Indirect refoulement 6
- Unaccompanied minor 6
- Exclusion from protection 5
- Female genital mutilation 5
- Refugee sur place 5
- Relevant Facts 5
- Safe country of origin 5
- Terrorism 5
- Trafficking in human beings 5
- Death penalty / Execution 4
- Inadmissible application 4
- Nationality 4
- Relevant Documentation 4
- Revocation of protection status 4
- Actors of protection 3
- Delay 3
- Final decision 3
- Integration measures 3
- Manifestly unfounded application 3
- Visa 3
- International armed conflict 2
- More favourable provisions 2
- Obligation to give reasons 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
- Crime against humanity 1
- Dependant (Dependent person) 1
- Family member 1
- Family reunification 1
- Residence document 1
- Sexual orientation 1
- Stateless person 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 35
- Iran 22
- Iraq 17
- Somalia 16
- Sudan 15
- Syria 14
- Eritrea 10
- Russia (Chechnya) 10
- Sri Lanka 9
- Russia 7
- Turkey 7
- Algeria 6
- Kyrgyzstan 5
- Palestinian Territory 5
- Tunisia 5
- Uzbekistan 5
- Congo (DRC) 4
- Georgia 4
- Kosovo 4
- Nigeria 4
- Pakistan 4
- Bangladesh 3
- Cameroon 3
- Guinea 3
- Morocco 3
- Serbia 3
- Armenia 2
- China (Tibet) 2
- Ethiopia 2
- India 2
- Jordan 2
- Sierra Leone 2
- Unknown 2
- Albania 1
- Angola 1
- Belarus 1
- Bhutan 1
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 1
- China 1
- Croatia 1
- Cyprus 1
- Ecuador 1
- Egypt 1
- France 1
- Gambia 1
- Germany 1
- Guinea-Bissau 1
- Ivory Coast 1
- Kazakhstan 1
- Kenya 1
- Lebanon 1
- Mali 1
- Mauritania 1
- Mongolia 1
- Rwanda 1
- Senegal 1
- Tajikistan 1
- Tanzania 1
- Ukraine 1
- Western Sahara 1
- Zimbabwe 1
Filter by country of decision
- France 25
- Germany 21
- United Kingdom 17
- Greece 10
- Austria 9
- Belgium 9
- Hungary 8
- Finland 6
- Slovenia 5
- Sweden 4
- Czech Republic 3
- Denmark 2
- Ireland 2
- Italy 2
- Netherlands 2
- Poland 2
- Spain 2
- Slovakia 1
- Switzerland 1