Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Reset
ECtHR - Mohammadi v Austria, Application No. 71932/12
Country of applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Detention, Indirect refoulement, Safe country of origin, Dublin Transfer, Return

The Dublin transfer of the applicant to Hungary will not violate Article 3 of the Convention. 

Date of decision: 03-07-2014
Relevant International and European Legislation: 2.,Article 5,Article 6,Article 7,Article 8,Article 9,Article 10,Article 11,Article 12,Article 13,Article 14,Article 17,Article 18,Article 19,Article 3
ECtHR - Samsam Mohammed Hussein and Others v the Netherlands and Italy, Application No. 27725/10 - Admissibility Decision
Country of applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Dublin Transfer

This inadmissibility decision concerned the transfer of Mrs. Hussein and her children to Italy from the Netherlands under the Dublin II Regulation. The Court found the applicant’s complaints under Article 3 ECHR and Article 13 ECHR as manifestly unfounded within the meaning of Article 35(3)(a) of the Convention. The Court found that though there were shortcomings in Italy it did not disclose systemic failures to provide support for asylum seekers there. 

Date of decision: 02-04-2013
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,ECHR (Frist Protocol),EN - Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003,Article 5,Article 14,Article 3,Article 8,Article 13,Article 15,ECHR (Fourth Protocol)
Sweden - Migration Court of Appeal, 10 December 2010, UM 7706-10
Country of applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Humanitarian considerations, Non-refoulement, Responsibility for examining application, Dublin Transfer

A transfer to Greece within the framework of the Dublin Regulation was stopped due to the conditions for asylum seekers in the country.

Date of decision: 10-12-2010
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 18,EN - Dublin II Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003,Article 3,Article 5,Article 6,Article 7,Article 8,Article 9,Article 10,Article 11,Article 12,Article 13,Article 14,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 3
Austria - Asylum Court (AsylGH), 27 July 2010, S8 413923-1/2010
Country of applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Accelerated procedure, Best interest of the child, Burden of proof, First country of asylum, Non-refoulement, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Unaccompanied minor, Child Specific Considerations, Responsibility for examining application, Request to take back, Return

In a decision on whether the return of an unaccompanied minor to Hungary under the Dublin Regulation is unlawful in light of Art. 3 ECHR and therefore the sovereignty clause should be used, Art. 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union(CFRU – best interest of the child as a primary consideration for authorities) is significant.

Date of decision: 27-07-2010
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 17,Art 24.2,2.,Article 5,Article 6,Article 7,Article 8,Article 9,Article 10,Article 11,Article 12,Article 13,Article 14,Article 15,1. (c),Article 19,Article 20,Article 3,Article 8,Article 13
Austria - Constitutional Court, 27 April 2009, U136/08
Country of applicant: Russia (Chechnya)
Keywords: Procedural guarantees, Inadmissible application, Family unity (right to), Responsibility for examining application, Request that charge be taken, Dublin Transfer, Obligation to give reasons

The fact that Poland agreed to take charge of the asylum procedure of a whole family is, by itself, not a proper basis for an inadmissibility decision. The hierarchy of the criteria for determining the Member State responsible for the procedure on the merits, set out in Art 5(1) Dublin II Regulation, must be respected. In this case the husband and father of the family had already been admitted to the procedure on the merits and, therefore, Art 8 was applicable prior to Art 14.

Date of decision: 27-04-2009
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 9.2,Article 5,Article 8,Article 14,Article 16,Article 8