Case summaries
ECtHR - Al-Tayyar Abdelhakim v. Hungary, Application No. 13058/11
Country of applicant:
Lebanon, Palestinian Territory
Keywords:
Detention, Effective remedy (right to)
The case concerns an asylum seeker’s complaint under Article 5(1) about the unlawfulness of his detention without effective judicial review, pending the outcome of his asylum claim.
Date of decision:
23-10-2012
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Art 18,Art 32,Art 33,Art 31,Article 7,4.,Article 5,Article 31
ECtHR - R.U. v. Greece, Application No. 2237/08
Country of applicant:
Turkey
Keywords:
Detention, Effective remedy (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Non-refoulement, Torture, Reception conditions, Return, Vulnerable person
The case concerned detention and detention conditions in Greece for a Turkish asylum seeker of Kurdish origin, who had been tortured in Turkey, and the conduct of the asylum procedure.
Date of decision:
07-09-2011
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Art 32,Art 33,Art 31,Article 3,Article 5,Article 13,Article 41
UK - Court of Appeal, 26 September 2009, EN (Serbia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [2009] EWCA Civ 630
Country of applicant:
Serbia, South Africa
Keywords:
Non-refoulement
Art 14.4 (a) of the Qualification Directive must be interpreted in accordance with Art 33.2 of the Refugee Convention. Thus, for the provisions to be applied, the individual must (1) have been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime and (2) constitute a danger to the community. It was not compatible with either Art 14.4 (a) of the Qualification Directive or Art 33.2 of the Refugee Convention for domestic legislation to provide that the conviction of certain crimes to create a presumption, that could not be rebutted, that the provisions applied to an individual. Any such presumptions had to be capable of being rebutted by the individual.
Date of decision:
26-09-2009
Relevant International and European Legislation:
EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,Art 1,Art 2,Art 14,Art 3,Art 32,Art 33,Art 31,Art 4,Art 16,Art 22,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 2,Article 3
Czech Republic - Supreme Administrative Court, 15 April 2009, K.K. v Ministry of Interior, 1 As 12/2009-61
Country of applicant:
Afghanistan
Keywords:
Detention, Procedural guarantees
When a decision on detention is being made it is necessary to consider if the person is a refugee (asylum seeker) and subsequently if expulsion is feasible, and therefore the only permissible purpose of detention.
Date of decision:
15-04-2009
Relevant International and European Legislation:
1951 Refugee Convention,EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005,Art 6.2,Art 18,Art 31,EN - Returns Directive, Directive 2008/115/EC of 16 December 2008,4.,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Art 5.4
ECtHR - Saadi v. United Kingdom, no. 13229/03, 29 January 2008
Country of applicant:
Iraq
Keywords:
Accelerated procedure, Delay, Detention, Procedural guarantees, Obligation to give reasons
The seven day detention of a ‘temporarily admitted’ asylum seeker under the fast-track procedure was non-arbitrary and consistent with Article 5(1), but the 76 hour delay in providing the individual with the real reasons for his detention did not satisfy the promptness requirement of Article 5(2).
Date of decision:
29-01-2008
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Art 18,Art 1,Art 33,Art 7,Art 31,Article 18,Art 5.1,Art 5.2
UK - Court of Appeal, 26 July 2002, El-Ali v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 1103
Country of applicant:
Lebanon, Palestinian Territory
Keywords:
Exclusion from protection
Art 1D of the 1951 Refugee Convention only applies to Palestinians who met two criteria. First of all, they had to have been in receipt of United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (“UNRWA”) protection or assistance on or before 28 July 1951 which was the date that the Convention was adopted. Secondly, whilst UNRWA’s mandate continued, if such Palestinians had left UNRWA’s field of operation they would have to show that they were in “exceptional circumstance”; for example if they were prevented from returning to UNRWA’s field of operation.
Date of decision:
26-07-2002
Relevant International and European Legislation:
EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,Art 12,Art 28,Art 1,Art 3,Art 32,Art 33,Art 31,Art 4,Art 16,Art 22,Art 2,Art 13,Art 15,Art 17,Art 21,Art 24,Art 26,Art 27
UK - Court of Appeal, 31 July 2000, Revenko v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] EWCA Civ 500
Country of applicant:
Moldova
A stateless person who is outside his or her country of former habitual residence and is unable to return there is not a refugee unless he or she is unable to return owing to a fear of persecution for a Convention reason.
Date of decision:
31-07-2000
Relevant International and European Legislation:
EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,Art 1A (2),Art 33,UNHCR Handbook,Art 31,Art 2 (c),Para 100,Para 101,Para 102,Para 103