Source: https://www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/en/content/new-communicated-cases-against-croatia-finland-bosnia-and-herzegovina-and-russia
Timestamp: 2020-05-31 21:46:32
Document Index: 547321445

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application No. 43115', 'Application No. 62733', 'Application No. 62756', 'Application No. 56179', 'Application No. 27994', 'Application No. 71772']

New communicated cases against Croatia, Finland, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Russia | European Database of Asylum Law
M.H and Others v Croatia (Application No. 43115/18) (No.2): The applicants are a family of 12 Afghan nationals who arrived in Croatia from Serbia. They were denied the opportunity to apply for asylum and were ordered to return to Serbia by following the train tracks. The applicants complain that the death of their daughter, after she was hit by a train while travelling to Serbia, was a result of the Croatian State’s failure to comply with the positive obligation under Article 2 ECHR. They also complain under Article 5(4) that they did not have access to effective procedures to challenge their detention in the Tovarnik Immigration Centre. The applicants also have another case pending before the Court.
A.A v Finland (Application No. 62733/19): The applicant is a Sunni Muslim and Iraqi national. His father was a high-ranking officer in the Iraqi army, and had been the target of numerous murder attempts. The applicant was also sentenced to life imprisonment in Iraq for fleeing the country and deemed a traitor. His application for asylum after arriving in Finland was rejected and his removal to Iraq was ordered. He later made another application for international protection in Finland, which was dismissed without an examination of the merits. He complains that his return to Iraq would violate his rights under Articles 2, 3 and 5 ECHR. His parents’ application is being decided in separate proceedings in Application No. 62756/19. They complain that their removal to Iraq would expose them to a real risk of death or ill-treatment, contrary to Articles 2 and 3 ECHR.
Abdulahi Awad v Finland (Application No. 56179/19): The applicant, a Somali national, was refused a residence permit as his Somali passport was not accepted as a valid identification document and was refused an application for an alien’s passport as he was not granted a work permit. As a result, the applicant was forced to give up his permanent employment. He complains under Article 14 with Article 8 ECHR and Article 1 of Protocol No. 2 that this refusal amounted to discrimination.
Muqishta v Bosnia and Herzegovina (Application No. 27994/19): The applicant is a Serbian national diagnosed with a severe mental disability with refugee status in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Her claim for disability allowance and other benefits was rejected on the ground of nationality, despite protection guaranteed in domestic legislation as well as the 1951 Refugee Convention. She complains that the administrative proceedings, which lasted more than 5 years, were in breach of Article 6(1) ECHR. She also complains that the refusal of disability allowance on grounds of nationality amounted to discrimination under Article 14 ECHR.
K.O and 4 Others v Russia (Application No. 71772/17): The applicants complain that they would face a real risk of ill-treatment in the event of return to their countries of origin due to their alleged links with terrorist organisations. They also argue that the authorities did not carry out an assessment of the risk involved in the event of their return.