You are here
Home › Procedural guarantees ›EDAL case summaries
Slovakian authorities provided information and interpretation and there are no indications that these were inadequate to the extent of impairing the individual’s access to asylum. The applicant’s return to Ukraine was conducted in the context of a readmission framework and there was no reason for Slovakian authorities to be particularly alert regarding potential human rights violations in Ukraine.
However, there has been a procedural violation of Article 3 of the Convention by Ukraine on account of the Ukrainian authorities’ failure to examine...
Well-grounded information is of central importance to any decision to exclude a person convicted for criminal matters from international protection in accordance with Article 1 F of the 1951 Refugee Convention.
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 concluded on the immediate release of an Egyptian national from detention. The judgment referred to the detention conditions for vulnerable persons that suffer from serious health conditions during the Covid-19 pandemic.
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.
The applicant brought an administrative action before the Administrative Court of the Circuit of Lisbon against the Ministry of Internal Affairs - Foreigners and Borders Service (SEF), in which he sought the annulment of the decision of the National Director of the SEF determining his transfer to Italy and the condemnation of the requested entity in the continuation of the process of international protection.
The Central Administrative Southern Court dismissed the appeal and, on grounds other than those set out in the contested judgment, upheld...
Confinement of asylum applicants in an airport transit zone is contrary to Art. 5 § 1 (f) in the absence of any domestic legal basis for the applicants’ deprivation of liberty.
Confinement of asylum seekers left to their own devices in airport transit zones under the control of border authorities, without unimpeded access to shower or cooking facilities, outdoor exercise and medical or social assistance amount to degrading and inhuman conditions under Art. 3 ECHR if protracted for a long time.
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 difficulties in access to the regional telephone operating centers set up by the French Office for Immigration and Integration (OFII) in order to obtain an appointment to register asylum applications leads to legal uncertainty for asylum seekers. This legal uncertainty violates their constitutional right to asylum, and therefore creates an emergency situation on which the Urgent Applications Judge can adjudicate.
When a refugee and their child apply for international protection, the Police Headquarters shall not make residence or parental relationship the conditions for submitting their application.
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
- National Case law 159
- ECrtHR Case law 30
- CJEU Case law 12
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Procedural guarantees filterProcedural guarantees
- Effective access to procedures 62
- Effective remedy (right to) 60
- Detention 35
- Dublin Transfer 33
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 31
- Personal interview 27
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 25
- Return 25
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 23
- Refugee Status 23
- Delay 20
- Individual assessment 20
- Responsibility for examining application 20
- Subsidiary Protection 20
- Credibility assessment 19
- Obligation to give reasons 19
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 19
- Reception conditions 16
- Relevant Documentation 14
- Non-refoulement 13
- Country of origin information 12
- Best interest of the child 11
- Personal circumstances of applicant 11
- Subsequent application 11
- Unaccompanied minor 11
- Accelerated procedure 10
- Membership of a particular social group 10
- Protection 10
- Well-founded fear 10
- Burden of proof 9
- Child Specific Considerations 9
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 9
- Real risk 9
- Safe third country 9
- Vulnerable person 9
- Request to take back 8
- Accommodation centre 7
- Family unity (right to) 7
- Material reception conditions 7
- Relevant Facts 7
- Standard of proof 7
- Inadmissible application 6
- Internal protection 6
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 6
- Torture 6
- Visa 6
- Duty of applicant 5
- Political Opinion 5
- Residence document 5
- Final decision 4
- Indirect refoulement 4
- Manifestly unfounded application 4
- Persecution (acts of) 4
- Access to the labour market 3
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 3
- Exclusion from protection 3
- Health (right to) 3
- Humanitarian considerations 3
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 3
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 3
- Refugee sur place 3
- Request that charge be taken 3
- Revocation of protection status 3
- Armed conflict 2
- Family member 2
- Indiscriminate violence 2
- Individual threat 2
- Previous persecution 2
- Race 2
- Safe country of origin 2
- Sexual orientation 2
- Terrorism 2
- Trafficking in human beings 2
- War crimes 2
- Actors of protection 1
- Benefit of doubt 1
- Circumstances ceased to exist 1
- Country of origin 1
- Crime against humanity 1
- Death penalty / Execution 1
- Family reunification 1
- First country of asylum 1
- Freedom of movement (right to) 1
- Gender Based Persecution 1
- Integration measures 1
- Internal armed conflict 1
- International armed conflict 1
- Nationality 1
- Serious harm 1
- Withdrawal of protection application 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 23
- Unknown 15
- Iraq 12
- Russia 11
- Iran 9
- Syria 9
- Nigeria 7
- Pakistan 7
- Sudan 7
- Somalia 6
- Eritrea 5
- Russia (Chechnya) 5
- Turkey 5
- Armenia 4
- Algeria 3
- Congo (DRC) 3
- Ivory Coast 3
- Morocco 3
- Palestinian Territory 3
- Sri Lanka 3
- Uzbekistan 3
- China 2
- France 2
- India 2
- Mali 2
- Rwanda 2
- Sierra Leone 2
- South Africa 2
- Tunisia 2
- Ukraine 2
- Bangladesh 1
- Chad 1
- Comoros 1
- Egypt 1
- Ethiopia 1
- Gambia 1
- Georgia 1
- Ghana 1
- Haiti 1
- Israel 1
- Jordan 1
- Kosovo 1
- Lebanon 1
- Liberia 1
- Libya 1
- Macedonia 1
- Moldova 1
- Nepal 1
- Niger 1
- Senegal 1
- Serbia 1
- Tanzania 1
- Togo 1
- United Kingdom 1
- United States 1
- Vietnam 1
- Western Sahara 1
- Zimbabwe 1
Filter by country of decision
- France 37
- Ireland 17
- Austria 16
- United Kingdom 16
- Spain 9
- Germany 8
- Greece 7
- Italy 7
- Poland 6
- Belgium 5
- Hungary 5
- Netherlands 5
- Sweden 5
- Finland 4
- Czech Republic 3
- Slovakia 3
- Portugal 2
- Slovenia 2
- Switzerland 2