You are here
Home › Procedural guarantees ›EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Delay, Effective remedy (right to), Personal interview, Procedural guarantees
The Federal Administrative Court has to clarify whether the petition for action directed solely at the obligation to decide on the asylum application is admissible. The question if it is also possible to directly oblige the defendant to grant international protection or to establish prohibitions on deportation by means of an action is not the subject of the decision. As a result, the court comes to the conclusion that there was a delay by the respondent of providing the decision on the asylum application without sufficient reason and that the plaintiff has a need for...
Date: 11-07-2018
Country of Decision: Spain
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Procedural guarantees
The Administrative Chamber of the Spanish Supreme Court established that Spain is bound by two Council Decisions of May and September 2015 establishing an EU Emergency Relocation Mechanism aimed at distributing a number of refugees that have arrived to Italy and Greece.
Date: 09-07-2018
Country of Applicant: United States
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Family unity (right to), Procedural guarantees
The European Court of Human Rights finds Russian authorities violated an American national’s Article 8 right to respect for family life, as it had compelled her to leave Russia, where her husband and minor child were living.
Date: 12-06-2018
Country of Decision: France
Keywords: Delay, Detention, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Procedural guarantees
The Constitutional Council decides on the constitutionality of the deadline to appeal against a return order, as applicable to a third-country national being detained, under paragraph 4 of Article L. 512-1 of the Code of Entry and Stay of Foreigners and the Right to Asylum (CESEDA). The Council decides hereby that the deadline proves to be too short- consequently unconstitutional- to effectively exercise the right to remedy in the context of detention.
Date: 01-06-2018
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Russia
Keywords: Exclusion from protection, Personal interview, Procedural guarantees
The Council of State annulled the decision from the French national court on asylum (CNDA) after noting it had not examined the applicant’s submission that he did not have access to an interpreter during his personal interview for a re-examination of his asylum application. He had indeed appealed against the decision of the French immigration authorities (OFPRA) rejecting his claim despite his inability to be understood.
Date: 11-04-2018
Country of Decision: Switzerland
Country of Applicant: Turkey
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Effective access to procedures, Individual assessment, Obligation to give reasons, Procedural guarantees, Safe third country, Terrorism
In cases of deportation to a third country, the competent authority is required to assess, on a case-by-case basis, if the third country offers effective legal protection against deportation to the state of origin.
In the case of a Turkish journalist of Kurdish origin, the competent authority had only insufficiently assessed if the applicant enjoys sufficient legal protection in Brazil against refoulment to Turkey. It therefore violated her right to be heard.
Date: 08-02-2018
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: Algeria
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Procedural guarantees, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application, Visa
The three-month time limit for take back requests, as prescribed by Article 21(1) of the Dublin III Regulation, will apply as soon as the competent authorities of the relevant Member State have been informed, with certainty, of the fact that international protection has been requested. Where certain responsibilities for the registration of applications have been delegated to a competent legal entity, the authorities will be deemed to have been so informed once the legal entity in question has made a written record of the applicant’s intention to claim asylum.
Date: 22-12-2017
Keywords: Detention, Effective remedy (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Procedural guarantees, Return
The detention conditions experienced by two Syrians in the Krasnoye Selo facility amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 ECHR. Moreover, the length of detention in most of the applicants’ cases was between eleven and fifteen months, which exceeded what was reasonably required for the purpose of administrative expulsion. Furthermore, they had no access to judicial and periodic review of their continued detention. A violation of Articles 5(1)(f) and 5(4) were found.
Date: 12-12-2017
Country of Decision: France
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid, Procedural guarantees, Relevant Documentation, Subsequent application
The National Court for the Right of Asylum (CNDA) has a responsibility to follow the general rules on closing files. Where this is not done, the Court can be found negligent.
Date: 24-11-2017
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
- National Case law 146
- ECrtHR Case law 28
- CJEU Case law 12
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Procedural guarantees filterProcedural guarantees
- Effective access to procedures 58
- Effective remedy (right to) 55
- Detention 35
- Dublin Transfer 32
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 31
- Personal interview 26
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 23
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 22
- Refugee Status 22
- Return 20
- Credibility assessment 19
- Responsibility for examining application 19
- Delay 18
- Obligation to give reasons 18
- Subsidiary Protection 18
- Individual assessment 17
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 17
- Non-refoulement 14
- Reception conditions 14
- Relevant Documentation 14
- Country of origin information 12
- Best interest of the child 11
- Subsequent application 11
- Unaccompanied minor 11
- Accelerated procedure 10
- Membership of a particular social group 10
- Personal circumstances of applicant 10
- Protection 10
- Well-founded fear 10
- Child Specific Considerations 9
- Real risk 9
- Safe third country 9
- Burden of proof 8
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 8
- Request to take back 8
- Vulnerable person 8
- Family unity (right to) 7
- Relevant Facts 7
- Standard of proof 7
- Internal protection 6
- Material reception conditions 6
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 6
- Torture 6
- Duty of applicant 5
- Inadmissible application 5
- Visa 5
- Accommodation centre 4
- Final decision 4
- Indirect refoulement 4
- Manifestly unfounded application 4
- Persecution (acts of) 4
- Political Opinion 4
- Residence document 4
- Access to the labour market 3
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 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
- Exclusion from protection 2
- Indiscriminate violence 2
- Individual threat 2
- Previous persecution 2
- Race 2
- Safe country of origin 2
- Sexual orientation 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 member 1
- First country of asylum 1
- Freedom of movement (right to) 1
- Gender Based Persecution 1
- Internal armed conflict 1
- International armed conflict 1
- Nationality 1
- Serious harm 1
- Terrorism 1
- Withdrawal of protection application 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 19
- Unknown 14
- Iraq 11
- Russia 11
- Iran 9
- Syria 9
- Pakistan 7
- Sudan 7
- Nigeria 6
- Eritrea 5
- Russia (Chechnya) 5
- Somalia 5
- Armenia 4
- Turkey 4
- Algeria 3
- Congo (DRC) 3
- Morocco 3
- Sri Lanka 3
- Tunisia 3
- Uzbekistan 3
- China 2
- India 2
- Ivory Coast 2
- Palestinian Territory 2
- Rwanda 2
- Sierra Leone 2
- South Africa 2
- Ukraine 2
- Bangladesh 1
- Chad 1
- Comoros 1
- Egypt 1
- Ethiopia 1
- France 1
- Gambia 1
- Georgia 1
- Ghana 1
- Haiti 1
- Israel 1
- Jordan 1
- Kosovo 1
- Liberia 1
- Libya 1
- Macedonia 1
- Mali 1
- Moldova 1
- Nepal 1
- Niger 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 33
- Ireland 17
- United Kingdom 16
- Austria 15
- Germany 8
- Spain 8
- Greece 7
- Poland 6
- Hungary 5
- Netherlands 5
- Sweden 5
- Finland 4
- Italy 4
- Belgium 3
- Czech Republic 3
- Slovakia 3
- Slovenia 2
- Switzerland 2
