You are here
Home › Terrorism ›EDAL case summaries
Article 3 has not been violated in a case concerning the deportation of an individual who had been convicted of a terrorism-related charge to Morocco. However the ECtHR acknowledges that ill-treatment and torture by the police and the security forces still occur, particularly in the case of persons suspected of terrorism or of endangering State security.
The applicant’s asylum claim has been rejected on the grounds of Article 1F(c) of the 1951 Refugee Convention. The act he committed would amount to being contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN. However, the Council of State hereby decided that in failing to seek and qualify the severity of this act in the light of its effects internationally, the lower court made an error of law.
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.
The CJEU in this case expanded on its previous ruling of B & D. Whereas previously the scope of the exclusion clause for those engaging in terrorist acts was limited to engaging in, conspiring to or planning an actual act of terrorism with an international dimension, the CJEU has now widened the scope to include those who provide logistical support even where no act of terrorism takes place.
The judgment concerns the scope of Article 21 of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 with regards to derogation from protection from refoulement and the possibility to revoke a residence permit issued to a refugee pursuant to Article 24 of said Directive.
This case concerned the meaning of “serious” in Article 1F(b): the Court had to decide whether the crime of participating in a criminal association with a terrorist aim was sufficiently serious enough to exclude the applicant from international protection.
The CALL required specific facts to be attributable to the Applicant and the existence of a high threshold of seriousness in order to make a finding of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. In this case the CALL refused to exclude the refugee status of an Applicant who had a criminal conviction for participating in the activities of a terrorist group.
These joint cases concern Article 1F(c) of the Refugee Convention. The Court considered what acts fall within the exclusion and what is meant by "serious reasons for considering" a person to be guilty of acts contrary to the purposes of the United Nations (“UN”).
The court ordered the Office of Immigration and Nationality to conduct new proceedings. The mere fact that national security risk factors arise vis-à-vis a person is not sufficient reason to exclude them from refugee or subsidiary protection status.
The European Court of Human Rights held that the expulsion of an Algerian national from Slovakia to Algeria, in contempt of an interim measure issued by the Court, was in violation of Articles 3, 13 and 34 of the Convention.
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Terrorism filterTerrorism
- Exclusion from protection 25
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 12
- Serious non-political crime 11
- Non-refoulement 7
- Refugee Status 7
- Detention 5
- Effective remedy (right to) 5
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 5
- Individual assessment 4
- Standard of proof 4
- War crimes 4
- Well-founded fear 4
- Crime against humanity 3
- Return 3
- Armed conflict 2
- Country of origin 2
- Effective access to procedures 2
- Internal armed conflict 2
- Obligation to give reasons 2
- Political Opinion 2
- Protection 2
- Real risk 2
- Revocation of protection status 2
- Safe country of origin 2
- Safe third country 2
- Torture 2
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 1
- Actors of protection 1
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 1
- Circumstances ceased to exist 1
- Death penalty / Execution 1
- First country of asylum 1
- Humanitarian considerations 1
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 1
- Manifestly unfounded application 1
- More favourable provisions 1
- Persecution (acts of) 1
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 1
- Procedural guarantees 1
- Residence document 1
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 1
- Subsidiary Protection 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Turkey 14
- Morocco 5
- Algeria 4
- Russia 3
- Russia (Chechnya) 3
- Afghanistan 2
- Sri Lanka 2
- Tunisia 2
- Egypt 1
- France 1
- Iran 1
- Iraq 1
- Jordan 1
- Lebanon 1
- Palestinian Territory 1
- United Kingdom 1
Filter by country of decision
- Germany 11
- United Kingdom 4
- France 3
- Belgium 2
- Spain 2
- Hungary 1
- Slovakia 1
- Switzerland 1