Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Reset
ECtHR Thuo v. Cyprus (no. 3869/07)
Country of applicant: Kenya

Lack of prompt investigation of ill-treatment complaints may amount to a procedural violation of Article 3 ECHR. Detention conditions should follow certain standards and individuals should be kept in suitable establishments with enough allocated space.

Date of decision: 04-04-2017
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 15,Article 16,Article 3,Article 5,Article 6,Article 7,Article 12,Article 13,Article 14,Article 17,Article 18,Article 35,Article 8,Article 9,Article 10
ECtHR – Z.H. and R.H. v. Switzerland, Application No. 60119/12, 8 March 2016
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

The applicants are Afghan nationals married religiously in Iran when the first applicant was 14 years old and the second applicant 18 years old. When they applied for asylum in Switzerland a year later, the Swiss authorities did not consider them as being married and the second applicant was subsequently expelled to Italy. They alleged that this expulsion constituted a violation of their Article 8 ECHR right to respect for family life. The Court found that the Swiss government had been justified in finding that they were not married, and held that the decision to expel the second applicant was not a violation of Article 8.

Date of decision: 08-03-2016
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Dublin II Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003,Article 3,Article 8,Article 12,Article 13,Article 34,Article 37,Article 45,EN - Dublin III Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No. 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 (recast Dublin II Regulation)
Germany - Administrative Court Gelsenkirchen, 18 July 2013, 5a K 4418/11.A
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

The risk of arranged marriage is widespread in Afghanistan, particularly for underage girls, which means that it may constitute grounds for refugee status for women.  
In the examination of Article 8 of Directive 2004/83/EC, it is important to take into account the fact that family members may only return together with their children and spouses on the grounds of the protection of marriage and family. 

Date of decision: 18-07-2013
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 8,Art 7,Art 9,Art 10,Art 4.4,2.,Article 8,Article 12
UK - Upper Tribunal, 2 December 2011, Entry Clearance Officer (Chennai) v Erandathi Lakmini Chandrasena Aswatte, [2011] UKUT 0476
Country of applicant: Sri Lanka

In this case the Tribunal considered the situation of refugee’s fiancé(e)s, who are not covered by the provisions relating to spouses and children. In general their exclusion is unlikely to be proportionate and their claim should succeed under Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Date of decision: 02-12-2011
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,Art 2 (h),EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 8,Article 12
Germany - Administrative Court Köln, 12 October 2007, 18 K 6334/05.A
Country of applicant: Iraq

Currently every Sunnite and Shiite from Central and South Iraq is to be considered as a refugee within the meaning of Section 60 (1) Residence Act and the 1951 Refugee Convention, if he/she originates from a region with mixed denominations.

Returnees who originate from regions of mixed denominations cannot obtain internal protection in any part of Iraq.

Date of decision: 12-10-2007
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,Art 8,Art 4.3,Art 7,Art 9,Art 10.1 (d),Art 10,Art 4,Art 6,Art 4.4,Art 1A,UNHCR Handbook,Para 38,Para 37,Para 41,Para 42,Para 39,Para 40,Art 2 (c),Para 44,Para 43,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 3,Article 4,Article 5,Article 7,Article 8,Article 9,Article 11,Article 12,Article 15
ECtHR - Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v The United Kingdom, Application nos. 9214/80; 9473/81 and 9474/81, 28 May 1985
Country of applicant: Malawi, Philippines, United Kingdom

The ECtHR held that the 1980 UK Immigration Rules breached ECHR Article 14 taken together with Article 8 as they discriminated on the ground of sex against three female applicants settled in the UK who wished to be joined by their spouses. It was easier for men settled in the UK to be joined by a non-national spouse than women but no objective and reasonable justification was found for this difference of treatment.

Date of decision: 28-05-1985
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 3,Article 8,Article 12,Article 13,Article 14,Article 25,Article 31,Article 32,Article 43,Article 44,Article 46,Article 47,Article 48,Article 50,ECHR (Fourth Protocol)