S.A. and F.A. v France (application no. 40429/19) concerns a Syrian couple who were homeless for several months. The application is based on Articles 3 and 6(1) ECHR. The Court asks whether the applicants’ living conditions, in particular during the period when they were sleeping rough, violate Article 3 ECHR.
On 18 March 2021, Advocate General Saugmandsgaard published an opinion in case C-8/20 concerning the interpretation of a ground for inadmissibility under Article 33 of the Asylum Procedures Directive (2013/32).
On 12 March 2021, the Council of State annulled the decision of an interim relief judge to reject a request to order the French Office for Immigration and Integration (OFII) to provide material reception in the form of accommodation, allowance and temporary work permit.
T.K. and Others v Lithuania (applications no. 55978/20) concerning the applicants, T.K., O.O. and their four minor children who are nationals of Tajikistan. They arrived in Lithuania in 2019 and lodged two unsuccessful asylum application submitting that they faced a risk of persecution in Tajikistan on account of T.K.’s political activities. The Lithuanian authorities acknowledged that T.K.
On 11 March 2021, the European Court of Human Rights published its judgment in Feilazoo v Malta (application no. 6865/19). After serving a sentence of twelve years in relation to drug related offences, the applicant was informed that he would be returne
On 2 March 2021, the European Court of Human Rights published its judgment in R.R. and others v Hungary (application no. 36037/17) concerning the confinement of an Iranian-Afghan family, including three minor children, to the Röszke transit zone at the border of Hungary and Serbia between 19 April and 15 August 2017.
On 1 March 2021, the cases A.I. and others v Poland (application no. 39028/17), T.Z. and M.M. and Others v Poland (application no. 41764/17) and A.B. and Others v Poland (application no. 42907/17) were communicated by the ECtHR.
