Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Reset
France - Council of State, 6 February 2017, Mr. and Mrs. C., No. 392593
Country of applicant: Russia
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Detention, Procedural guarantees, Relevant Facts, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Subsequent application, Final decision

Where the ECtHR has, under Article 39 of the ECHR, granted interim measures prohibiting the Government from deporting the Applicant, this does not impact the ability of national courts to rule on the Applicant’s claim to asylum. The interim measures are binding on national authorities only.

Date of decision: 06-02-2017
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005,European Union Law,International Law,Council of Europe Instruments,EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,EN - Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 6,Article 13,Article 34,Article 39,EN - Recast Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2013/33/EU of 26 June 2013
ECtHR - M. D. and M. A. v Belgium, Application No. 58689/12, 19 January 2016
Country of applicant: Russia
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Actor of persecution or serious harm, Burden of proof, Credibility assessment, Detention, Duty of applicant, Effective remedy (right to), Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Persecution (acts of), Relevant Facts, Relevant Documentation, Standard of proof, Subsequent application, Well-founded fear, Refugee Status, Real risk, Individual threat

The Court found a violation of Article 3 in relation to a subsequent application for asylum, which had been rejected on the basis that it contained no new elements indicating that the Applicants ran a real risk of being subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment on deportation to Russia. Because new information had in fact been provided, the national authorities were under an obligation to thoroughly review the information in order to assure themselves that the Applicants’ rights under Article 3 would be safeguarded.

Date of decision: 19-01-2016
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,Art 32,EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,Article 40,EN - Dublin II Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003,Article 3,Article 13,Article 39,Article 41,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011
ECtHR – M. K. v France, Application No. 76100/13, 1 September 2015
Country of applicant: Algeria
Keywords: Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manifestly unfounded application, Non-refoulement, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Personal circumstances of applicant, Refugee sur place, Well-founded fear, Real risk

The obligations imposed by Article 3 ECHR do not prevent contracting states from taking into account the possibility of relocation. Where appropriate, contracting states can expect an applicant to relocate to another part of his country of origin in order to avoid persecution.

Date of decision: 01-09-2015
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,Art 1A (2),European Union Law,International Law,Council of Europe Instruments,EN - Returns Directive, Directive 2008/115/EC of 16 December 2008,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 3,Article 39,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011
ECtHR – L. O. v France, Application No. 4455/14, 26 May 2015
Country of applicant: Nigeria
Keywords: Benefit of doubt, Burden of proof, Country of origin information, Credibility assessment, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Non-refoulement, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Subsequent application, Trafficking in human beings, Real risk

Considering the general situation in the country and the circumstances specific to the Applicant, the ECtHR held that there were no serious and current grounds to believe that she would be at real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 upon her return to Nigeria. 

Date of decision: 26-05-2015
Relevant International and European Legislation: European Union Law,Council of Europe Instruments,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 3,Article 4,Article 35,Article 39,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011
ECtHR - K.K.C. v. the Netherlands, Application No. 58964/00, 21 December 2001
Country of applicant: Russia
Keywords: Country of origin information, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Refugee Status, Real risk

The present case, which ended in a friendly settlement between the parties, concerned the allegations of a Russian national that he would be exposed to ill-treatment if expelled to Russia.

Date of decision: 21-12-2001
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 34,Article 36,Article 37,Article 39