Case Law
- African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights 2
- Australia: Administrative Appeals Tribunal 1
- Australia: Federal Court 1
- Australia: Refugee Review Tribunal 8
- Belgium: Conseil du Contentieux des Etrangers 1
- Bulgaria: Supreme Administrative Court 1
- Canada: Federal Court 2
- Council of Europe 1
- Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights 11
- Egypt: Council of State (Administrative Judicial Court) (Mahkmah Al Qda’a El Edari) 1
- European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union 1
- France: Cour nationale du droit d'asile 1
- Germany: Bundesverfassungsgericht 1
- Greece: Council of State 1
- India: Magistrate Courts 2
- Ireland: High Court 13
- Ireland: Supreme Court 1
- Israel: High Court of Justice 2
- Moldova: Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of Chisinau Tribunal 2
- New Zealand: High Court 1
- New Zealand: Refugee Status Appeals Authority 11
- Romania: Bucharest Sector IV Court 1
- Russian Federation: District Courts 1
- Slovakia: Regional Court in Bratislava 1
- Sudan: Supreme Court 1
- Switzerland: Federal Court 1
- UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) 5
- United Kingdom: Asylum and Immigration Tribunal / Immigration Appellate Authority 13
- United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) 18
- United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) 1
- United Kingdom: Court of Session (Scotland) 10
- United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales) 2
- United Kingdom: High Court (Northern Ireland) 1
- United Kingdom: House of Lords (Judicial Committee) 3
- United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) 4
- United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 1
- United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1
- United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 1
- Access to procedures 2
- Acts of persecution 2
- Administrative law 1
- Albanians 1
- Appeal / Right to appeal 8
- Arbitrary arrest and detention 17
- Armed forces / Military 1
- Armed groups / Militias / Paramilitary forces / Resistance movements 2
- Asylum-migration nexus 1
- Asylum-seekers 2
- Beja 2
- Berti 2
- Cessation clauses 2
- Changes of circumstances in home country 1
- Children's rights 2
- Children-at-risk 1
- Christian 2
- Citizenship / Nationality law 1
- Complementary forms of protection 1
- Constitutional law 1
- Copts 1
- Country of origin information (COI) 27
- Credibility assessment 20
- Crimes against humanity 1
- Criminal justice 4
- Darfuri 7
- Deportation / Forcible return 22
- Discrimination based on race, nationality, ethnicity 3
- EU Qualification Directive 2
- Economic, social and cultural rights 1
- Effective protection 1
- Effective remedy 7
- Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) 20
- Expedited procedures 2
- Expulsion 8
- Extrajudicial executions 1
- Family reunification 4
- Female genital mutilation (FGM) 3
- Forced marriage 1
- Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment 28
- Fresh / New claim 1
- Fur 3
- Gross, systematic and large-scale 1
- Grounds for persecution 1
- Human rights activists 1
- Human rights and fundamental freedoms 1
- IDP camps 4
- Illegal entry 2
- Immigration Detention 7
- Immigration law 2
- Internal armed conflict 1
- Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) 22
- Internally displaced persons (IDPs) 3
- Involuntary repatriation 1
- Jurisdiction 2
- Kosovar 1
- Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) 2
- Mandate status 1
- Manifestly unfounded / Clearly abusive claims 3
- Massaleit 2
- Mental health 1
- Military operations 1
- Military service / Conscientious objection / Desertion / Draft evasion / Forced conscription 16
- Non-refoulement 12
- Non-state agents of persecution 3
- Nuba 3
- Opposition 2
- Passports 2
- Peace process 1
- Persecution based on political opinion 36
- Persecution of family members 4
- Persecution on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity 2
- Political groups 2
- Political parties 3
- Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) 1
- Prison or detention conditions 5
- Proof of nationality 1
- Public health 3
- Racial / Ethnic persecution 29
- Refoulement 7
- Refugee / Asylum law 1
- Refugee camps 1
- Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures 1
- Refugees 2
- Regional instruments 2
- Registration 1
- Rejected asylum-seekers 2
- Religious persecution (including forced conversion) 3
- Rescue at sea / Interception at sea 1
- Residence permits / Residency 2
- Returnees 1
- Right to employment 2
- Right to family life 2
- Right to liberty and security 2
- Right to life 2
- Right to return 1
- Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness 5
- Safe third country 5
- Security forces 1
- Single heads of household 1
- Social group persecution 10
- State protection 2
- Sur place persecution 1
- Suspensive effect 4
- Terrorism 2
- Threats / Intimidation 1
- Torture 2
- Transgression of social / cultural norms 1
- Travel documents 2
- Unaccompanied / Separated children 1
- Unlawful departure 1
- Visas 1
- Well-founded fear of persecution 2
- Women-at-risk 4
|
AFFAIRE M.A. c. BELGIQUE (Requête no 19656/18)
The case concerned the applicant’s removal to Sudan by the Belgian authorities in spite of a court decision ordering the suspension of the measure. The Court found in particular that on account of procedural defects attributable to the Belgian authorities prior to the applicant’s removal to Sudan, he had been prevented from pursuing the asylum application that he had lodged in Belgium and the Belgian authorities had not sufficiently assessed the real risks that he faced in Sudan. In addition, by deporting the applicant in spite of the court order to suspend the measure, the authorities had rendered ineffective the applicant’s successful appeal. 27 October 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Effective remedy - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Suspensive effect | Countries: Belgium - Sudan |
|
CASE OF S.A. v. THE NETHERLANDS
(Application no. 49773/15)
Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complained that if removed to Sudan he would be at risk of forced recruitment, persecution because he belonged to a non-Arab ethnic group from Darfur, and more generally, on account of the humanitarian situation in Sudan as a result of the conflict in Darfur. No violation of Article 3 – in the event of the applicant’s removal to Sudan No violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 3 2 June 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Effective remedy - Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Racial / Ethnic persecution - Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness | Countries: Netherlands - Sudan |
|
Esther Segai Gersagher et al. v. the Knesset et al.
The Court is requested to order the voidness of section 4 of the Prevention of Infiltration and Ensuring the Departure of Infiltrators from Israel 5775-2014 (Legislative Amendments and Temporary Provisions) 5775-2014 (hereinafter: the "Amending Law") that obliges foreign workers who entered Israel not through a border crossing (hereinafter: "Infiltrator Workers") and their employers to deposit in a special bank account a total amount at a rate of 36% of the worker's wages that will be paid to the worker only at the time of his departure from Israel (hereinafter: the "Deposit Scheme"). In short, the Petitioners argue that the Deposit Scheme, in general, or in the least some of its components, is unconstitutional and therefore should be voided. 23 April 2020 | Judicial Body: Israel: High Court of Justice | Topic(s): Administrative law - Asylum-seekers - Constitutional law - Illegal entry - Non-refoulement | Countries: Eritrea - Israel - Sudan |
|
Esther Segai Gersagher et al v. The Knesset et al
23 April 2020 | Judicial Body: Israel: High Court of Justice | Topic(s): Economic, social and cultural rights - Illegal entry - Immigration law - Right to employment | Countries: Eritrea - Israel - Sudan |
|
AAR & AA (Non-Arab Darfuris – return) Sudan [2019] UKUT 00282 (IAC)
The situation in Sudan remains volatile after civil protests started in late 2018 and the future is unpredictable. There is insufficient evidence currently available to show that the guidance given in AA (non-Arab Darfuris - relocation) Sudan CG [2009] UKAIT 00056 and MM (Darfuris) Sudan CG [2015] UKUT 00010 (IAC) requires revision. Those cases should still be followed. 29 July 2019 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Country of origin information (COI) - Darfuri | Countries: Sudan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
|
BVerfG, Beschluss der 1. Kammer des Zweiten Senats
25 February 2019 | Judicial Body: Germany: Bundesverfassungsgericht | Topic(s): Effective remedy - Manifestly unfounded / Clearly abusive claims | Countries: Germany - Sudan |
|
AFFAIRE A.E.A. c. GRÈCE (Requête no 39034/12)
The possibility of introducing an asylum claim is a conditio sine qua non for the effective protection of persons in need of international protection. If authorities do not guarantee unhindered access to the asylum procedure, asylum-seekers can not make use of the procedural rights foreseen within the asylum procedure and are at risk of being arrested at any time. Hence even if the asylum procedure offers effective safeguards, these are of no use if, as in the present case, the asylum claim is not registered for a long period of time. [85] violation of article 13 (effective remedy) in combination with article 3 ECHR. 15 March 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Access to procedures - Effective protection - Effective remedy - Registration | Countries: Egypt - Greece - Sudan - Türkiye |
|
OPINION OF LORD TYRE In the petition O M (Petitioner) against SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Respondent) [2018] CSOH 17
The observation by the court in MIAB at paragraph 68 that many of the time-limits in the Dublin III Regulation are solely intended to regulate the position as between different member states is, at least as regards the six month time limit in article 29(1), inconsistent with the Court’s ruling that an applicant is entitled to rely upon expiry of the time limit in order to resist a transfer to the requested state. The same goes for the obiter observation of the Lord Ordinary in BM at paragraph 26 that the time limits in article 29(1) are solely intended to regulate the matter between member states. nothing in Shiri that casts any doubt on the correctness of the views expressed in both MIAB and BM regarding the suspensive effect of an administrative cancellation of removal directions falling within article 27(4). 12 March 2018 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Court of Session (Scotland) | Legal Instrument: 2013 Dublin III Regulation (EU) | Topic(s): Suspensive effect | Countries: Sudan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
|
Arrêt n° 192 584
26 September 2017 | Judicial Body: Belgium: Conseil du Contentieux des Etrangers | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Non-refoulement | Countries: Belgium - France - Italy - Sudan |
|
Ramadan v. Minister of the Interior
Unofficial Translation 7 September 2017 | Judicial Body: Sudan: Supreme Court | Topic(s): Citizenship / Nationality law | Countries: South Sudan - Sudan |
