Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Reset
CJEU - C-718/19, Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone and Others v Conseil des ministers
Country of applicant: Belgium

The Court decides that the maximum period of detention for the purpose of removal of a person on the grounds of public policy or public security under Belgian law, according to which Union citizens and their family members are treated in the same way as third-country nationals subject to a return procedure, exceeds the principle of proportionality and thus does not comply with EU law.

Date of decision: 22-06-2021
Relevant International and European Legislation: Recital (2),Recital (4),Recital (24),Article 2,Article 6,Article 7,1.,1. (a),1. (b),2.,2. (a),2. (b),3.,4.,5.,6.,6. (a),6. (b),1.,2.,3.,4.,5.,1.,2.,3.,4.,5.,Article 18,Art 45.1,Art 45.2,Art 4
European Court of Human Rights, A.A. v. Switzerland, 5 November 2019, n°32218/17
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

When a national authority assesses the likely persecution of an applicant for religious purposes in case of return to his/her country of origin, the national authority must evaluate, inter allia, the way the applicant will live his/her faith in his/her country of origin. The Court found that because the applicant is of Hazara ethnic origin and he converted to Christianism in Switzerland, he might face persecution in violation of art. 3 ECHR in case of return to Afghanistan. The TAF did not assess with enough seriousness the consequences of the applicant conversion ex nunc.

Date of decision: 05-11-2019
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 3,1.,1. (a),1. (b),2.,2. (a),2. (b),3.,4.,5.,6.,6. (a),6. (b),1.,2.,3.,4.,5.,Article 3,Article 35,Article 41,Article 43,Article 44,Article 4,Article 5,Article 9,Article 10
France, Court of Appeal of Douai, 19 February 2019, X v. Prefect of Pas de Calais, No RG19/00334
Country of applicant: Sudan

A medical examination to assess vulnerability was requested by an applicant in administrative detention. This demand was not examined by the doctor in charge in the detention facility. Therefore, the court of appeal refused an extension of the applicant’s administration detention and ordered their release. 

Date of decision: 19-02-2019
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 3,1.,1. (a),1. (b),2.,2. (a),2. (b),3.,4.,5.,6.,6. (a),6. (b),1.,2.,3.,4.,5.