Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Reset
ECtHR - Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary, Application No. 47287/15, 21 November 2019
Country of applicant: Bangladesh

When State Parties do not examine an application for international protection in its mertis based on a safe third country clause, Article 3 still requires that they apply a thorough and comprehensive legal procedure to assess the existence of such risk by looking into updated sources regarding the situation in the receiving third country. Hungary violated Article 3 by failing to conduct an efficient and adequate assessment when applying the safe third country clause for Serbia.

Article 5 cannot be considered as ratione materiae applicable to the Röszke transit zone; the applicants' stay there involved a short waiting time in order for Hungary to verify their right to enter, they had entered on their own initiative and they were free to leave the area in the direction of Serbia. The conditions in the transit zone were not found to breach Article 3 because of the restrictive measure's short duration, the possibility for human contact and the applicants' awareness of the procedure.

Date of decision: 21-11-2019
Relevant International and European Legislation: Recital (38),Recital (39),Recital (43),Recital (44),Recital (45),Recital (46),Recital (47),Recital (48),Article 31,Article 33,Article 35,Article 36,Article 38,Article 39,Article 43,Article 3,Article 5,Article 13,Art 5.1,Art 5.4
CJEU - C-695/15, Shiraz Baig Mirza v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal
Country of applicant: Pakistan

An asylum applicant can be sent to a Safe Third Country by a Member State who has admitted responsibility under Dublin III in the context of a take back request, where the applicant has left the responsible Member State before a decision on the first asylum application has been taken on its merits.

The absence of information being provided to the sending Member State by the receiving Member State on the latter’s legislation and practice regarding STC does not prevent an asylum applicant being sent to a STC or breach  an applicant’s right to an effective remedy

Where an applicant has been taken back by a responsible Member State there is no obligation on the State to re-open the examination of the application at the exact point where it was left.

Date of decision: 17-03-2016
Relevant International and European Legislation: European Union Law,EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,Article 28,Article 33,Article 38,Article 39,Article 46,EN - Dublin III Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No. 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 (recast Dublin II Regulation),Article 3,Article 7,Article 12,Article 18,Article 26,Article 27
Poland - Regional Administrative Court in Warsaw, 26 February 2013, IV SA/Wa 2459/12

This was a decision to suspend execution of the appealed decision of the Polish Refugee Board on refusal to accord refugee status, provide subsidiary protection or grant a permit for tolerated stay, and on deportation from the Republic of Poland.

If the Applicant is forced to leave Poland prior to the conclusion of administrative proceedings, he will not be able to exercise his right to an effective remedy in full, and if the appeal is dismissed, international protection within the meaning of the Geneva Convention will not be provided. 

Date of decision: 26-02-2013
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 39