Source: https://www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/en/case-law-search?amp%3Bf%5B0%5D=field_keywords%3A1162&amp%3Bf%5B1%5D=field_keywords%3A89&amp%3Bpage=1&f%5B0%5D=field_keywords%3A2483&f%5B1%5D=field_leg_applicable%3A4045
Timestamp: 2020-01-21 06:54:36
Document Index: 10995253

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application no. 11981', 'Application no. 40167', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 1', 'CJEU ', 'application no. 30696']

Home › Final decision › Council of Europe Instruments ›
France - Council of State, 6 February 2017, Mr. and Mrs. C., No. 392593
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Detention, Final decision, Procedural guarantees, Relevant Facts, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Subsequent application
Where the ECtHR has, under Article 39 of the ECHR, granted interim measures prohibiting the Government from deporting the Applicant, this does not impact the ability of national courts to rule on the Applicant’s claim to asylum. The interim measures are binding on national authorities only.
ECtHR – B.A.C. v. Greece, Application no. 11981/15, 13 October 2016
Keywords: Access to the labour market, Delay, Education (right to), Family unity (right to), Final decision, Political Opinion
The ECtHR ruled that the Greek authorities had failed in their positive obligation under Article 8 ECHR to guarantee that the applicant’s asylum request is examined within a reasonable time in order to ensure that his situation of insecurity, which impinges upon several elements of his private life, is as short-lived as possible.
Date: 13-10-2016
Belgium - Council of State, 8 March 2016, Nr. 234.074
Country of Applicant: Togo
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Final decision, Non-refoulement, Procedural guarantees, Return, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect)
The Council of State requested a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the compatibility of Belgian Law with Article 5 of Directive 2008/115/EC (the “Directive”). The Directive requires Member States to respect the principle of non-refoulement, as well as ensure that there is a right to an effective remedy.
Under Belgian Law, the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (the “Commissioner”) can dismiss an asylum application and issue an order to leave the territory (“Return Order...
Date: 08-03-2016
UK - Esmaiel Mohammed Pour (1), Seid Jafar Hasini Hersari (2), Majid Ghulami (3) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Keywords: Accelerated procedure, Access to the labour market, Detention, Dublin Transfer, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Final decision, Health (right to), Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Non-refoulement, Obligation to give reasons, Procedural guarantees, Request to take back, Return, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Safe third country, Standard of proof, Subsequent application
The case concerns three unconnected Iranian nationals who unsuccessfully claimed asylum in the Republic of Cyprus then came to the UK where they made asylum claims. A further right to appeal remained with the Cypriot Supreme Court. The case is a challenge by the applicants to the SSHD’s refusal to decide their asylum claims substantively; certification of their asylum claims on safe third country grounds; and certification of their human rights claims as clearly unfounded.
The Court concluded that there was no real risk that the...
ECtHR - Case of Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan, Application no. 40167/06, 16 June 2015
Keywords: Armed conflict, Discrimination, Final decision, Freedom of movement (right to), Internal armed conflict
When due to security reasons an individual cannot be allowed to return to his home where he has lived most of his life, the State has to adopt any other available positive measure to restore his property rights or to provide him with compensation in an appropriate time. Otherwise a violation of both Art. 8 of the Convention and Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 may occur.
Austria - Constitutional Court (VfGH), 16 September 2013, U1268/2013
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Country of origin information, Final decision, Individual assessment, Membership of a particular social group, Obligation to give reasons, Sexual orientation, Subsequent application
This case involved a violation of the right to equal treatment of foreigners as a result of a rejection of the application for international protection and expulsion of the homosexual Applicant to Nigeria because of a failure by the decision-maker to make its own country determinations and to thoroughly examine the situation of homosexuals in Nigeria.
Date: 16-09-2013
Slovakia - Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic, 30 November 2012, M.L.B. v Ministry of Interior of the Slovak Republic, 10Sža/56/2011
Country of Decision: Slovakia
Keywords: Effective remedy (right to), Final decision
CJEU - C-69/10, Brahim Samba Diouf v. Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration
Keywords: Accelerated procedure, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Final decision
The right to an effective remedy under EU law does not require the specific preliminary decision to place an applicant for international protection under the accelerated procedure to be itself subject to judicial review, provided that this decision is reviewable as part of judicial consideration of the final substantive decision to grant or refuse protection.
Date: 28-07-2011
Austria - Constitutional Court, 28 June 2011, B4/11
Keywords: Accelerated procedure, Detention, Dublin Transfer, Final decision, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Material reception conditions, Non-refoulement, Reception conditions, Request that charge be taken, Responsibility for examining application, Return, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Subsequent application
Legality of detention in the event of imminent deportation to Greece, if the detention was imposed before the judgment by the ECtHR in the case M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece (application no. 30696/09) and there is an enforceable expulsion decision.
Date: 28-06-2011
National Case law 8
EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 16
ECHR (Frist Protocol) 4
Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 5
Subsequent application 5
Accelerated procedure 4
Procedural guarantees 4