Source: https://m.asylumlawdatabase.eu/pt-pt/news-ls
Timestamp: 2020-07-07 09:18:49
Document Index: 225052196

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application No. 6040', 'Application No. 37442', 'Application No. 51860', 'Application No. 37442', 'Application No. 17189', 'Application No. 29662', 'Application No. 49773', 'Application No. 18810', 'Application No. 32825', 'Application No. 8716', 'Application No. 18810', 'CJEU ']

CJEU: Hungary’s restrictions on the financing of civil organisations from abroad contrary to EU law
On 18 June 2020, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered its judgment in Case C-78/18 Commission v Hungary, concerning Hungary’s restrictions on the financing of civil society organisations from abroad.
M.R. v Switzerland: Political activities of Iranian national would not give rise to violation of Article 2 or 3 ECHR in event of return
On 16 June 2020, the European Court of Human Rights published its judgment in M.R. v Switzerland (Application No. 6040/17) concerning an individual's return to Iran.
Communicated cases against Italy (Application No. 37442/19) and Norway Application No. 51860/19
Umoru v Italy (Application No. 37442/19): The case concerns a Nigerian national who arrived in Italy after obtaining a visa for family reunification. He was placed in foster care and later received mental health support for pathological personality traits and psychopathologic vulnerability. The applicant was convicted for various criminal charges including theft and destruction of property.
M.S. v. Slovakia and Ukraine: Procedural shortcoming in applicant’s return to Afghanistan
On 11 June 2020, the European Court of Human Rights published its judgment in M.S. v. Slovakia and Ukraine (Application No. 17189/11) concerning expulsion to Afghanistan and detention pending expulsion.
CJEU: Interpretation of the expulsion of third-country nationals who are long-term residents
On 11 June 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union published its judgment in Case C-448/19 referred by Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (High Court of Justice of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain).
Finland: Supreme Administrative Court rules that deportation order would be disproportionate to applicant’s right to family life
On 9 June 2020, the Supreme Administrative Court published its judgment (KHO: 2020: 67) on the deportation of an applicant, of Kurdish ethnicity, to Iraq.
Communicated cases against Greece (Application Nos. 12237/20 and 12736/20) and Ukraine (Application No. 29662/13)
L.A. and Others and A.A. v Greece (Application Nos. 12237/20 and 12736/20): The case concerns a mother, her two children, and an unaccompanied minor, all of Syrian nationality. They allege that they were returned from Greece to Turkey and obstructed from lodging an asylum request. They complain that the conditions leading up to their return were contrary to Articles 3 and 5 ECHR.
Cyprus: Refugee status must be granted due to inability for authorities to guarantee protection to applicant*
On 5 June 2020, the Administrative Court of International Protection of Cyprus ruled on the application of Article 1D of the 1951 Refugee convention to a case of a stateless person of Palestinian origin.
S.A. v Netherlands: Removal of applicant to Sudan would not amount to violation of Article 3 ECHR
On 2 June 2020, the European Court of Human Rights published its judgment in S.A. v The Netherlands (Application No. 49773/15) concerning the risk of exposure to inhuman and degrading treatment in the event of an applicant’s removal to Sudan.
Communicated cases against Croatia (Application No. 18810/19), Sweden (Application No. 32825/18), and Greece (Application No. 8716/20)
S.B. and Others v Croatia (Application No. 18810/19): The applicants are Syrian nationals who currently reside in Germany and The Netherlands. In October 2018, they claim to have entered Croatia from Bosnia and Herzegovina on different occasions with groups of other persons.
Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 387
Detention 274
Dublin Transfer 243
Return 188
Effective remedy (right to) 185
Reception conditions 133
Effective access to procedures 128
Family unity (right to) 125
Material reception conditions 106
Best interest of the child 102
Vulnerable person 98
Procedural guarantees 74
Unaccompanied minor 69
Family reunification 68
Subsidiary Protection 61
Country of origin information 58
Credibility assessment 58
Individual assessment 53
Persecution Grounds/Reasons 53
Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 52
Child Specific Considerations 50
Assessment of facts and circumstances 48
Family member 47
Sexual orientation 47
Persecution (acts of) 45
Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 43
Health (right to) 39
Non-refoulement 39
Request to take back 36
Exclusion from protection 35
Responsibility for examining application 33
Safe third country 31
Residence document 29
Political Opinion 27
Torture 27
Visa 26
Request that charge be taken 23
Trafficking in human beings 23
Real risk 22
Relevant Documentation 22
Personal circumstances of applicant 20
Burden of proof 19
Internal protection 19
Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 19
Gender Based Persecution 18
Subsequent application 18
ECtHR 105
CJEU 65
NGO 62
Greece 33
UNHCR 28
Council of Europe 23
European Parliament 20
border management 17
recasts 17
European Commission 16
FRONTEX 14
ECRE 13
CEAS 10
Parliamentary Assembly 10
EASO 9
Hungarian Helsinki Committee 8
international asylum law 8
Committee of Ministers 7
international refugee law 7
Libe Committee 6
international protection 3