Case Law
- African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights 2
- Australia: Federal Court 1
- Australia: Refugee Review Tribunal 1
- Austria: Constitutional Court of Austria (Verfassungsgerichtshof) 1
- Belgium: Conseil du Contentieux des Etrangers 2
- Belgium: Cour de cassation 1
- Bolivia: Tribunal Constitucional 1
- Canada: Court of Appeal for Ontario 1
- Canada: Courts of Appeal 1
- Canada: Federal Court 4
- Canada: Federal Court of Appeal 4
- Canada: Supreme Court 1
- Costa Rica: Corte Suprema de Justicia 9
- Council of Europe 1
- Council of Europe: European Commission on Human Rights 35
- Council of Europe: European Committee of Social Rights 1
- Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights 125
- Czech Republic: Constitutional Court 1
- Ecuador: Corte Constitucional 2
- European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union 1
- France: Conseil d'Etat 2
- Greece: Council of State 5
- Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) 1
- Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACrtHR) 4
- Ireland: High Court 1
- Italy: Courts of First Instance 1
- Italy: Italian Supreme Court (Corte Suprema di Cassazione) 2
- New Zealand: Court of Appeal 1
- Norway: Supreme Court 2
- Poland: Provincial (Voivodship) Administrative Court 1
- Russian Federation: City Courts 1
- Switzerland: Federal Court 8
- Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral 1
- UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) 99
- UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) 1
- UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) 1
- UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) 15
- United Kingdom: Asylum and Immigration Tribunal / Immigration Appellate Authority 1
- United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) 5
- United Kingdom: Court of Session (Scotland) 1
- United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales) 4
- United Kingdom: House of Lords (Judicial Committee) 1
- United Kingdom: Privy Council (Judicial Committee) 1
- United Kingdom: Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) 1
- United States Board of Immigration Appeals 1
- United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 1
- United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2
- Afghanistan 14
- Algeria 15
- Angola 1
- Australia 11
- Austria 9
- Azerbaijan 3
- Bangladesh 11
- Belgium 8
- Bhutan 2
- Bolivia 1
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 1
- Bulgaria 7
- Canada 24
- Cape Verde 1
- Chad 1
- China 3
- Colombia 8
- Congo, Democratic Republic of the 4
- Costa Rica 10
- Cuba 2
- Czech Republic 3
- Côte d'Ivoire 1
- Denmark 10
- Djibouti 2
- Dominican Republic 4
- Ecuador 2
- Egypt 3
- El Salvador 2
- Eritrea 3
- Ethiopia 4
- Falkland Islands 1
- Finland 2
- France 16
- Gambia 1
- Georgia 5
- Germany 10
- Greece 17
- Guinea 1
- Haiti 1
- Hungary 7
- India 6
- Iran, Islamic Republic of 25
- Iraq 5
- Ireland 2
- Italy 26
- Jordan 2
- Kenya 2
- Kyrgyzstan 2
- Latvia 1
- Lebanon 3
- Libya 3
- Lithuania 1
- Madagascar 1
- Mali 2
- Malta 1
- Mauritania 2
- Mexico 4
- Moldova, Republic of 2
- Montenegro 1
- Morocco 4
- Myanmar 2
- Netherlands 29
- Netherlands Antilles 1
- New Zealand 1
- Nicaragua 1
- Nigeria 8
- North Macedonia 3
- Norway 7
- Pakistan 8
- Palestine, State of 6
- Panama 1
- Peru 1
- Philippines 1
- Poland 2
- Romania 9
- Russian Federation 21
- Rwanda 1
- Serbia 6
- Sierra Leone 2
- Slovakia 1
- Somalia 10
- South Sudan 1
- Spain 5
- Sri Lanka 24
- Sudan 6
- Sweden 47
- Switzerland 39
- Syrian Arab Republic 11
- Tajikistan 1
- Tanzania, United Republic of 1
- Togo 2
- Tunisia 21
- Turkey 23
- Uganda 2
- Ukraine 1
- United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 23
- United States of America 6
- Uzbekistan 9
- Venezuela 1
- Viet Nam 2
- Zambia 1
|
D.D. v. Spain
1 February 2019 | Judicial Body: UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) | Topic(s): Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Expulsion - Non-refoulement - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Mali - Morocco - Spain |
|
CASE OF GEORGIA v. RUSSIA (I) (Application no. 13255/07) (just satisfaction)
31 January 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Asylum policy - Expulsion | Countries: Georgia - Russian Federation |
|
THE MATTER OF ANUDO OCHIENG ANUDO V. UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
In the instant case, the Applicant maintains that he is of Tanzanian nationality, which is being contested by the Respondent state. ln the circumstance, it is necessary to establish on whom lies the burden of proof. lt is the opinion of the Court that, since the Respondent State is contesting the Applicant's nationality held since his birth on the basis of legal documents established by the Respondent State itself, the burden is on the Respondent state to prove the contrary. 22 August 2018 | Judicial Body: African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights | Topic(s): Burden of proof - Effective remedy - Expulsion - Withdrawal of nationality | Countries: Tanzania, United Republic of |
|
CASE OF S.Z. v. GREECE (Application no. 66702/13)
violation of articles 3 and 5 21 June 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Expulsion - False documents - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Greece - Syrian Arab Republic |
|
CASE OF LJATIFI v. THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA (Application no. 19017/16)
“(….) even where national security is at stake, the concepts of lawfulness and the rule of law in a democratic society require that deportation measures affecting fundamental human rights be subject to some form of adversarial proceedings before an independent authority or a court competent to effectively scrutinise the reasons for them and review the relevant evidence, if need be with appropriate procedural limitations on the use of classified information. 17 May 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Expulsion - National security / Public order | Countries: North Macedonia - Serbia |
|
CASE OF IBROGIMOV v. RUSSIA (Application no. 32248/12)
in the light of the overwhelming European and international consensus geared towards abolishing the outstanding restrictions on entry, stay and residence of HIV-positive non nationals who constitute a particularly vulnerable group, the respondent Government failed in their duty to put forward compelling reasons or any objective justification for their differential treatment for health reason 15 May 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Expulsion - HIV and AIDS | Countries: Russian Federation - Uzbekistan |
|
CASE OF IBROGIMOV v. RUSSIA (Application no. 32248/12)
in the light of the overwhelming European and international consensus geared towards abolishing the outstanding restrictions on entry, stay and residence of HIV-positive non nationals who constitute a particularly vulnerable group, the respondent Government failed in their duty to put forward compelling reasons or any objective justification for their differential treatment for health reason 15 May 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Expulsion - HIV and AIDS | Countries: Russian Federation - Uzbekistan |
|
CASE OF EJIMSON v. GERMANY (Application no. 58681/12)
in a case which concerns family life as well as immigration, the extent of a State’s obligations will vary according to the particular circumstances of the persons involved and the general interest. 1 March 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Expulsion - Rejected asylum-seekers - Residence permits / Residency - Right to family life | Countries: Germany - Nigeria |
|
AFFAIRE M.A. c. FRANCE (Requête no 9373/15)
- the expulsion of the applicant, whose conviction for terrorist offences had been known to the Algerian authorities, had exposed him to a real and serious risk of treatment contrary to Article 3. - French authorities deliberately created a situation whereby the applicant would have great difficulty in submitting a request for an interim measure to the Court, and had lowered the level of protection under Article 3 of the Convention. - acutely aware of the extent of the danger posed to the community by terrorism and that it was legitimate for Contracting States to take a very firm stand against those who contributed to terrorist acts. 1 February 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Expulsion - Terrorism - Torture | Countries: Algeria - France |
|
A.L. v Russia
30 November 2017 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Complementary forms of protection - Expulsion - Refoulement | Countries: Russian Federation - South Sudan |
