You are here
Home › Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ›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 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
Country of Decision: Italy
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Request to take back, Safe country of origin
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.
Date: 25-05-2018
Country of Decision: Denmark
Country of Applicant: Eritrea
Keywords: Child Specific Considerations, First country of asylum, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Vulnerable person
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...
Date: 17-04-2018
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 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
Country of Applicant: Morocco
Keywords: Detention, Effective remedy (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Procedural guarantees, Return
The ECtHR argues that the expulsion of a Moroccan National from Sweden to Morocco would represent a breach on article 3 ECHR.
Date: 09-01-2018
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Sudan
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Effective access to procedures, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Material reception conditions, Reception conditions, Request to take back
There are systemic deficiencies in the Italian asylum procedure and in its reception conditions for asylum applicants which amount to inhuman or degrading treatment.
Date: 05-01-2018
Country of Decision: Belgium
Country of Applicant: Sudan
Keywords: Country of origin information, Effective access to procedures, Individual assessment, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Return
Where an individual is detained with a view to his removal and an Article 3 violation is alleged if the applicant is returned, it is for the Court to rule on the plea and thus assess the lawfulness of the decision to detain.
In the light of the ECtHR jurisprudence on Article 3 ECHR and country of origin information on Sudan the Belgian authorities had to rigorously verify if the applicant would risk being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR before issuing the order to leave the territory, which includes giving the applicant an effective opportunity to be heard. This...
Date: 04-01-2018
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
- National Case law 131
- ECrtHR Case law 107
- 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) 73
- Detention 69
- Dublin Transfer 54
- Refugee Status 46
- Effective access to procedures 45
- Return 42
- Subsidiary Protection 41
- Reception conditions 39
- Real risk 38
- Procedural guarantees 30
- Torture 30
- Non-refoulement 29
- Country of origin information 28
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 27
- Material reception conditions 26
- Personal circumstances of applicant 26
- Vulnerable person 25
- Serious harm 24
- Well-founded fear 24
- Credibility assessment 21
- Political Opinion 21
- Responsibility for examining application 21
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 20
- Individual assessment 19
- 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
- Request to take back 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
- Religion 11
- Safe third country 11
- Discrimination 10
- Family unity (right to) 10
- Indiscriminate violence 10
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 10
- Standard of proof 10
- Accelerated procedure 8
- 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 34
- Iran 21
- 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
- Congo (DRC) 4
- Georgia 4
- Kosovo 4
- Nigeria 4
- Pakistan 4
- Tunisia 4
- Uzbekistan 4
- Cameroon 3
- Guinea 3
- Morocco 3
- Serbia 3
- Armenia 2
- Bangladesh 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
- 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
