Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Reset
Italy - Court of Cassation, No. 7333, 2 December 2014
Country of applicant: Nigeria

The applicant’ s description of a situation which gives rise to a risk to his life or physical integrity, deriving from gender-based violence, social or religious group violence, family/domestic violence, which is accepted, tolerated or not tackled by the State, imposes an ex proprio motu further investigation upon the Judiciary. The latter entails an investigation into the control of  violence described by the applicant in terms of whether it is widespread, whether there is impunity for the acts as well as the State’s response

Date of decision: 02-12-2014
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005,Art 4.1,Art 8,Art 4.2,Art 4.3,Art 4,Art 8.2,Art 8.1,Art 8.2,Art 8,Art 30,Art 38,Art 29,Art 29.3,Art 30.4,Art 30.5,Art 38.1,Art 38.1 (c),EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 2,Article 3,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011,Article 4,Article 8
ECtHR - I.M. v France, Application No. 9152/09
Country of applicant: Sudan

The detention of asylum applicants may undermine their ability to claim asylum and that an ‘effective remedy’ requires an appeal with suspensive effect against refoulement in order to prevent irreparable harm, sufficient time to prepare the appeal and effective legal assistance and interpretation.

Date of decision: 02-05-2012
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 8,Art 6,Art 23,Art 9,Art 14,Art 1,Art 33,Art 29,EN - Dublin II Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003,Article 3,Article 13,Article 29,Article 34,Article 35,Article 37,Article 43,Article 44
CJEU - C-69/10, Brahim Samba Diouf v. Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration
Country of applicant: Mauritania

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 of decision: 28-07-2011
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 23,Recital 11,Recital 27,Art 28,Art 29,Recital 13,Recital 8,Article 47,Article 6,Article 13