Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Reset
Austria- Constitutional Court, 13 December 2011, U1907/10
Country of applicant: Russia

As a result of six convictions owing to trivial offences against property, subsidiary protection was withdrawn from the Applicant, as he would represent a danger to the general public. The Constitutional Court revoked this decision as unconstitutional: the Asylum Court had not interpreted the corresponding national stipulation in accordance with the Directives as the crimes committed were not of the seriousness required in Art 17 Qualification Directive.

Date of decision: 13-12-2011
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 17,Art 1F,Art 19,Art 6,Art 13,Article 2,Article 3
Austria - Constitutional Court, 28 June 2011, B4/11
Country of applicant: Guinea

Legality of detention in the event of imminent deportation to Greece, if the detention was imposed before the judgment by the ECtHR in the case M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece (application no. 30696/09) and there is an enforceable expulsion decision.

Date of decision: 28-06-2011
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 18,Art 21,Art 23.4 (h),Art 32,Art 6,Art 13,Article 4,Article 19,Article 39,Article 15,2.,Article 10,Article 18,Article 2,Article 3,Article 5,Article 8
Austria - Constitutional Court, 9 October 2010, U1046/10
Country of applicant: Nigeria

The withdrawal of practical protection against deportation for subsequent applications is lawful and does not represent an infringement of the right to an effective remedy (Art 13 ECHR), if the legality of the withdrawal is examined by the Asylum Court.

Date of decision: 09-10-2010
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 39,Art 21,Art 23.4 (h),Art 32,Art 7,Art 6,Art 13,Article 47,Article 2,Article 3,Article 8,Article 13
ECtHR – Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom, Application No. 61498/08, 2 March 2010
Country of applicant: Iraq

Under Article 2 ECHR there can be no extradition of an individual if a serious risk of the death penalty is established. An applicant’s psychological suffering due to the fear of execution by authorities violates Article 3.

It is not open to a Contracting State to enter into an agreement with another State which conflicts with its obligations under the Convention.

Date of decision: 02-03-2010
Relevant International and European Legislation: ECHR (Frist Protocol),Council of Europe Instruments,Art 13,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 1,Article 2,Article 3,Article 6,Article 13,Article 34,Article 41,Article 46