EDAL case summaries
Country of Applicant: Sudan
Keywords: Access to the labour market, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Material reception conditions, Reception conditions, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Torture
The possibility to lodge an asylum application in practice is a prerequisite for the effective protection of those in need of international protection. If access to the asylum procedure is not guaranteed by the national authorities, asylum applicants cannot benefit from the guarantees afforded to those under the asylum procedure, leaving them subject to detention at any time. The length of time in which it took for the applicant to lodge his asylum application violated his rights under Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 3 ECHR.
Date: 15-03-2018
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: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Gambia
Keywords: Accelerated procedure, Credibility assessment, Detention, Effective access to procedures, Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Procedural guarantees, Reception conditions, Sexual orientation, Torture, Vulnerable person
The detention of an asylum-seeker who claimed he had been tortured because of his sexual orientation was unlawful in part.
Date: 17-06-2016
Country of Decision: France
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Effective access to procedures, Procedural guarantees, Reception conditions
The application was in three parts: the applicants asked the tribunal to annul the police commissioner’s decision on how the registration of asylum requests was carried out in Paris; to compel the police commissioner to re-examine the methods of registration; to fine the state €1500. The first two parts of the application were granted but the third was not.
Date: 25-05-2016
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Iraq
Keywords: Detention, Effective access to procedures, Freedom of movement (right to), Health (right to), Reception conditions
The court overturned a decision to transfer the Applicant to his first country of asylum, Bulgaria, and also overturned the placement of the Applicant in administrative detention for five days.
The court held that given the general state of reception conditions for asylum applicants in Bulgaria and the Applicant’s particular circumstances, in particular his physical vulnerability, there were substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for asylum applicants and that if the Applicant was handed over to...
Date: 02-05-2016
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Material reception conditions, Reception conditions
The considerable delays of receiving an appointment at the Prefect in order to register an asylum application means that applicants are deprived of legally entitled guarantees, notably material ones. Consequentially such delays constitute a serious and manifestly illegal infringement upon the fundamental right to asylum.
The Police Prefect must register the asylum application within 10 days of the notification of this decision.
Date: 22-02-2016
Country of Applicant: Gambia
Keywords: Detention, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Material reception conditions, Real risk, Reception conditions, Refugee Status
The Court found a violation of Articles 3 and 5(4) ECHR in relation to the Applicant’s detention conditions at Fylakio and Aspropyrgos, and the shortcomings of domestic law in relation to the judicial review of his detention.
Date: 04-02-2016
Country of Decision: Germany
Keywords: Access to the labour market, Dublin Transfer, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Material reception conditions, Reception conditions, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect)
The question remains open and needs to be clarified in legal proceedings, whether there are systemic flaws in the Bulgarian asylum procedure and conditions of admission, such as pose a risk of infringement of Article 4 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR) (cf. Article 3(2) Regulation No. 604/2013(Dublin III)) – in particular in the case of a return under the Dublin system.
Date: 17-11-2015
Country of Decision: France
Keywords: Accommodation centre, Best interest of the child, Child Specific Considerations, Effective access to procedures, Health (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid, Material reception conditions, Procedural guarantees, Reception conditions, Unaccompanied minor, Vulnerable person
The Applicants asked the Administrative Tribunal of Lille (the “Tribunal”) to order the relevant authorities to take urgent interim relief measures to guarantee the fundamental freedoms of the population of the Calais camp.
The Administrative Judge acceded to several of the applicants’ demands (identification of vulnerable minors, hygiene, cleanliness, emergency vehicle access) and held that the situation in the Calais camp constituted a grave and blatantly illegal breach of the right of the persons residing there not to be subjected to degrading and inhuman...
Date: 02-11-2015
Country of Applicant: Serbia
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Material reception conditions, Reception conditions, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect)
A lack of attention paid to the vulnerability of the applicants as asylum seekers and children and their subsequent exposure to conditions of extreme poverty outside the State reception system has led to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
The procedure of requesting the suspensive effect of a decision rejecting an asylum application and ordering the transfer of an applicant to another Member State does not amount to an effective remedy under the Convention.
Date: 07-07-2015
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Effective access to procedures filterEffective access to procedures
- (-) Remove Reception conditions filterReception conditions
- Effective remedy (right to) 9
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 9
- Detention 8
- Material reception conditions 8
- Best interest of the child 4
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 4
- Procedural guarantees 4
- Refugee Status 4
- Unaccompanied minor 4
- Child Specific Considerations 3
- Dublin Transfer 3
- Health (right to) 3
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 3
- Vulnerable person 3
- Access to the labour market 2
- Accommodation centre 2
- Personal circumstances of applicant 2
- Torture 2
- Accelerated procedure 1
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 1
- Benefit of doubt 1
- Credibility assessment 1
- Family member 1
- First country of asylum 1
- Freedom of movement (right to) 1
- Integration measures 1
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 1
- Real risk 1
- Relevant Facts 1
- Request to take back 1
- Sexual orientation 1
Filter by country of applicant
Filter by country of decision
- France 5
- Germany 2
- United Kingdom 1
