Case summaries

  • My search
  • Country of applicant
    1
Reset
ECtHR - Gaspar v Russia, Application no. 23038/15, 12 June 2018
Country of applicant: United States

The European Court of Human Rights finds Russian authorities violated an American national’s Article 8 right to respect for family life, as it had compelled her to leave Russia, where her husband and minor child were living.

Date of decision: 12-06-2018
CJEU - C‑579/13, P, S v Commissie Sociale Zekerheid Breda, College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van de gemeente Amstelveen
Country of applicant: New Zealand, United States

The Long- Term Residence Directive (Council Directive 2003/109/EC) does not preclude the imposition of an obligation to pass a civic integration examination, as long as this does not obstruct the objectives pursued by the Directive.

Date of decision: 04-06-2015
CJEU - C-472/13, Andre Lawrence Shepherd v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Country of applicant: United States

The judgment concerns the status of military deserters under the Qualification Directive (2004/83/EC) and the definition to be accorded to persecutory acts following on from a refusal to perform military service. Whilst the definition of military service is to include support staff the CJEU has held that there must be a sufficient link between the asylum seeker’s actions and the preparation or eventual commission of war crimes.  

The individual must establish with sufficient plausibility that his unit is highly likely to commit war crimes and that there exists a body of evidence capable of credibly establishing that the specific military service will commit war crimes. Moreover, desertion is the only way to avoid participation in war crimes and disproportionate and discriminatory acts should be assessed in light of a State’s domestic prerogatives.  

Date of decision: 26-02-2015
ECtHR - Nolan and K. v Russia, Application no. 2512/04, 12 February 2009
Country of applicant: United States

The applicant was expelled from Russia on the basis of his religious activities and separated from his infant son as a result. While Russia attempted to justify this on the ground of national security, the Court held that sufficient evidence was not provided and that Articles 5, 8, 9 and 38 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 had been violated.

Date of decision: 12-02-2009