You are here
Home ›EDAL case summaries
The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the removal of families belonging to the Sikh religious minority to Afghanistan would not constitute a violation of Article 3 ECHR, as the applicants’ situation failed to reach the severity threshold required by this Article. Despite the fact that the Sikh community suffers from intimidation and intolerance within the Afghan society, the Court did not find that this group is the target of a practice of a systematic practice of ill-treatment, despite any difficulties they may be facing in the country.
The fact that many Uighurs who have returned to China have been detained in “re-education camps”, or have otherwise faced the risk of imprisonment and ill-treatment, combined with the applicants’ individual circumstances, establishes substantial grounds to believe that the applicants would be at real risk of arbitrary detention, and inhuman treatment, or even death, if they were removed to their country of origin.
If implemented, the applicants’ removal to China would be in breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR.
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 Judge of the liberty and detention of the Nice Judicial Tribunal declared irregular the procedure during which the applicant was notified of his administrative detention more than an hour after the end of his police interrogation.
The Judge considered that the deprivation of liberty during that time had no legal foundation.
The domestic body of civil law and civil procedure relating to family disputes was found to be applicable in accordance with Articles 12 and 16 of the 1951 Geneva Convention, as the applicant was a recognised refugee in the country and needed to end her marriage.
In view of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Swiss authorities should obtain formal and detailed guarantees on care and accommodation from the Italian authorities before transferring families and vulnerable persons to Italy under the Dublin III Regulation.
This is because Decree-law 113/218 on Public safety and Immigration in Italy has deeply reformed the Italian refugee reception system.
Article 6(1)(e) of the Schengen Borders Code does not preclude the issue of a return decision to a third-country national not subject to a visa requirement and who is present on the territory of a M.S. for a short stay if that national is suspected of having committed a criminal offence. Moreover, the Code does not impose an obligation to establish, in order to issue such a decision, that their conduct represents a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of the society of the...
Article 10(2) of Directive 2003/86 allows Member States to define autonomously the nature of the relationship of dependence between the sponsor and the family member not referred in art. 4, as long as the national law have regard of all the relevant circumstances of the refugee’s situation through a case-by-case approach.
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...
The ECJ has to decide on the assessment of the existence of a serious individual threat by reason of mere presence in a certain area. It has to decide whether there is a minimal threshold of civilian fatalities that excludes such risk or if a holistic approach taking into account all circumstances special to the case has to be followed to assess the existence of such threat.
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
- National Case law 1420
- ECrtHR Case law 254
- CJEU Case law 125
Filter by applicable legal provisions
- European Union Law 1404
- Council of Europe Instruments 707
- International Law 539
- UNHCR Handbook 102
Filter by keywords
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 280
- Subsidiary Protection 256
- Effective remedy (right to) 248
- Detention 240
- Dublin Transfer 233
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 229
- Refugee Status 222
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 216
- Credibility assessment 211
- Procedural guarantees 202
- Effective access to procedures 185
- Membership of a particular social group 163
- Return 163
- Country of origin information 161
- Internal protection 158
- Individual assessment 125
- Well-founded fear 124
- Real risk 122
- Persecution (acts of) 121
- Responsibility for examining application 121
- Family unity (right to) 120
- Reception conditions 117
- Personal circumstances of applicant 116
- Non-refoulement 102
- Political Opinion 102
- Serious harm 98
- Burden of proof 97
- Exclusion from protection 95
- Best interest of the child 93
- Vulnerable person 92
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 88
- Subsequent application 87
- Protection 82
- Child Specific Considerations 81
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 79
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 79
- Internal armed conflict 78
- Standard of proof 78
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 77
- Unaccompanied minor 76
- Family member 74
- Material reception conditions 73
- Indiscriminate violence 72
- Relevant Documentation 72
- Gender Based Persecution 71
- Religion 71
- Torture 69
- Family reunification 68
- Relevant Facts 67
- Safe third country 67
- Individual threat 63
- Humanitarian considerations 61
- Personal interview 61
- Request to take back 61
- Country of origin 58
- Previous persecution 57
- Actors of protection 55
- Discrimination 55
- Obligation to give reasons 51
- Delay 49
- Sexual orientation 49
- Inadmissible application 48
- Accelerated procedure 47
- Health (right to) 47
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 46
- Refugee sur place 46
- Armed conflict 42
- Revocation of protection status 42
- Terrorism 40
- First country of asylum 39
- Request that charge be taken 39
- Benefit of doubt 37
- Manifestly unfounded application 34
- Safe country of origin 33
- Access to the labour market 32
- Accommodation centre 32
- Nationality 31
- Residence document 30
- Crime against humanity 29
- Dependant (Dependent person) 29
- Duty of applicant 28
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 26
- Race 25
- Visa 25
- Circumstances ceased to exist 24
- Final decision 24
- Serious non-political crime 24
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 23
- Stateless person 22
- Freedom of movement (right to) 21
- Trafficking in human beings 20
- Cessation of protection 19
- Integration measures 18
- Indirect refoulement 17
- War crimes 17
- Female genital mutilation 15
- More favourable provisions 11
- Country of former habitual residence 10
- International armed conflict 10
- Death penalty / Execution 9
- Education (right to) 8
- Sponsor 8
- Withdrawal of protection application 8
- Temporary protection 4
- Genocide 3
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 218
- Iraq 125
- Iran 104
- Russia 92
- Syria 92
- Nigeria 88
- Somalia 84
- Turkey 60
- Unknown 59
- Pakistan 45
- Eritrea 43
- Russia (Chechnya) 41
- Algeria 37
- Sudan 37
- Congo (DRC) 36
- Sri Lanka 35
- Kosovo 27
- Palestinian Territory 25
- Morocco 23
- Ukraine 22
- Cameroon 21
- Guinea 19
- Ivory Coast 19
- Armenia 18
- Albania 17
- Ethiopia 16
- Lebanon 16
- Rwanda 16
- China 15
- Bangladesh 14
- Georgia 14
- Ghana 14
- Colombia 13
- Gambia 13
- Tunisia 13
- Egypt 12
- Serbia 12
- Senegal 11
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 10
- Sierra Leone 10
- Uzbekistan 10
- Mali 9
- Belarus 8
- India 8
- Kyrgyzstan 8
- Vietnam 8
- Angola 7
- Kazakhstan 7
- Mongolia 7
- Uganda 7
- Azerbaijan 6
- France 6
- Libya 6
- South Africa 6
- Togo 6
- United Kingdom 6
- Zimbabwe 6
- Burundi 5
- Croatia 5
- Mauritania 5
- Tanzania 5
- Bulgaria 4
- Jordan 4
- Kenya 4
- Lithuania 4
- Moldova 4
- United States 4
- Western Sahara 4
- Brazil 3
- China (Tibet) 3
- Cuba 3
- Germany 3
- Liberia 3
- Macedonia 3
- Benin 2
- Bhutan 2
- Botswana 2
- Chad 2
- Congo (Republic of) 2
- Cyprus 2
- Haiti 2
- Israel 2
- Kuwait 2
- Myanmar 2
- Niger 2
- North Korea 2
- Saudi Arabia 2
- Slovakia 2
- South Korea 2
- Tajikistan 2
- Venezuela 2
- Austria 1
- Burkina Faso 1
- Central African Republic 1
- Comoros 1
- Czech Republic 1
- Djibouti 1
- Dominican Republic 1
- Ecuador 1
- Gabon 1
- Greece 1
- Guinea-Bissau 1
- Indonesia 1
- Italy 1
- Jamaica 1
- Madagascar 1
- Malawi 1
- Montenegro 1
- Namibia 1
- Nepal 1
- New Zealand 1
- Philippines 1
- Poland 1
- Romania 1
- Thailand 1
- Zambia 1
Filter by country of decision
- France 177
- Germany 162
- United Kingdom 149
- Austria 97
- Ireland 88
- Belgium 85
- Sweden 74
- Netherlands 66
- Spain 62
- Greece 59
- Czech Republic 58
- Poland 58
- Italy 52
- Hungary 47
- Finland 42
- Slovenia 35
- Slovakia 30
- Denmark 25
- Switzerland 17
- Luxembourg 16
- Portugal 13
- Cyprus 7