Case summaries
ECtHR - V.M. and others v. Belgium, Application no.60125/11, 7 July 2015
Country of applicant:
Serbia
Keywords:
Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Reception conditions, Material reception conditions
A lack of attention paid to the vulnerability of the applicants as asylum seekers and children and their subsequent exposure to conditions of extreme poverty outside the State reception system has led to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
The procedure of requesting the suspensive effect of a decision rejecting an asylum application and ordering the transfer of an applicant to another Member State does not amount to an effective remedy under the Convention.
Date of decision:
07-07-2015
Relevant International and European Legislation:
European Union Law,Council of Europe Instruments,EN - Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003,EN - Returns Directive, Directive 2008/115/EC of 16 December 2008,EN - Dublin II Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003,Article 3,2.,Article 16,1. (e),3.,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 2,Article 3,Article 4,Article 6,Article 13,EN - Recast Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2013/33/EU of 26 June 2013
UK - Court of Appeal, R (AR (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2013] EWCA Civ 778
Country of applicant:
Iran
This case related to a dispute as to whether the UK or Belgium had responsibility for determining the applicant’s asylum claim
Date of decision:
28-06-2013
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Art 1A (2),Art 6.2,Article 41,Article 47,Recital 23,Art 25.1,4.,Article 4,Article 13,1. (e),3.