Legal Information
- Article 19 1
- Belarus: District Courts 2
- Belarus: Supreme Court 1
- Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights 13
- Czech Republic: Supreme Administrative Court 1
- France: Conseil d'Etat 1
- Ireland: High Court 4
- National Legislative Bodies / National Authorities 45
- Regional Treaties, Agreements, Declarations and Related 1
- UN Commission on Human Rights 3
- UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) 1
- UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) 1
- UN General Assembly 2
- UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) 3
- UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) 13
- UN Human Rights Council 5
- United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) 1
- United Kingdom: Court of Session (Scotland) 1
- United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 1
- Case Law 39
- Case Law Compilations/Analyses 1
- Comments on National Legislation 1
- Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae 2
- Legal Articles/Analyses/Commentaries 1
- Multilateral Treaties/Agreements 1
- National Decrees, Circulars, Regulation, Policy Documents 12
- National Legislation 33
- Resolutions/Recommendations/Declarations 10
|
UNHCR Observations on the proposed amendments to the "Law on citizenship of the Republic of Belarus" 1 September 2002 No. 136-З
December 2022 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Comments on National Legislation |
|
CASE OF T.Z. AND OTHERS v. POLAND
(Application no. 41764/17)
The present case concerns numerous refusals of the Polish authorities to examine the applicants’ requests for international protection, their denied entry to Poland and return to Belarus 13 October 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Effective remedy - Entry / Exit - Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: Belarus - Poland - Russian Federation |
|
Case of A.B. and Others v. Poland (Application no. 42907/17)
The present case concerns refusal of border guards to receive the applicants’ asylum applications and summary removal to a third country, with a risk of refoulement to and ill-treatment in the country origin. 30 June 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Rejection at border | Countries: Belarus - Poland - Russian Federation |
|
Case of A.I. and Others v. Poland (Application no. 39028/17)
The present case concerns refusal of border guards to receive the applicants’ asylum applications and summary removal to a third country, with a risk of refoulement to and ill-treatment in the country origin. 30 June 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Rejection at border | Countries: Belarus - Poland - Russian Federation |
|
Submission by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
in the case of R.A. and Others v. Poland (Appl. No. 42120/21)
before the European Court of Human Rights
February 2022 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae |
|
UNHCR's Comments on the draft Amendments to the Law on Citizenship of Belarus
21 September 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Comments on National Legislation |
|
CASE OF M.K. AND OTHERS v. POLAND
(Applications nos. 40503/17, 42902/17 and 43643/17)
The applicants alleged that the Polish authorities had repeatedly denied them the possibility of lodging an application for international protection, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. They also invoked Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, alleging that their situation had not been reviewed individually and that they were victims of a general policy that was followed by the Polish authorities with the aim of reducing the number of asylum applications registered in Poland. The applicants stated that, under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, lodging an appeal against a decision denying someone entry into Poland did not constitute an effective remedy as it would not be examined quickly enough, would have no suspensive effect and would not be examined by an independent body. Moreover, the applicants complained that the Polish authorities had not complied with the interim measures granted to them by the Court, in breach of Article 34 of the Convention. 23 July 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Access to procedures - Effective remedy - Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: Belarus - Poland - Russian Federation |
|
K.A. v. Belarus
25 November 2016 | Judicial Body: UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Freedom of assembly and association | Countries: Belarus |
|
Anatoly Poplavny and Leonid Sudalenko v. Belarus
24 November 2016 | Judicial Body: UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Effective remedy - Freedom of assembly and association - Freedom of expression | Countries: Belarus |
|
Belarus: Law on the Citizenship of the Republic of Belarus (As Amended in 2016)
20 July 2016 | Publisher: National Legislative Bodies / National Authorities | Document type: National Legislation |
