Case Law

The case concerned the conditions of detention of Syrian, Afghan and Palestinian nationals in the “hotspots” of Vial and Souda (Greece), and the lawfulness of their detention in those camps. The Court considered that the authorities had done all that could reasonably be expected of them in the Vial camp to meet the obligation to provide care and protection to unaccompanied minors. The other applicants had been transferred immediately – or within ten days – from the Vial camp to the Souda camp. The Court also held that the conditions of detention in the Souda camp did not amount to inhuman or degrading treatment. The Court reiterated its previous finding that a period of one month’s detention in the Vial camp should not be considered excessive, given the time needed to comply with the relevant administrative formalities. In addition, the length of the applicants’ detention once they had expressed their wish to apply for asylum had been relatively short. In contrast, the applicants, who did not have legal assistance, had not been able to understand the content of the information brochure; in particular, they were unable to understand the material relating to the various appeal possibilities available under domestic law.

3 October 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Access to procedures - Arbitrary arrest and detention - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Legal representation / Legal aid - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Afghanistan - Greece - Palestine, State of - Syrian Arab Republic

The Committee makes the following recommendations to the State party: (a) Concerning the author of the communication and her daughters: (i) Reopen their asylum case, taking into account the Committee’s views; (ii) Refrain from forcibly returning them to Jordan, where they would be exposed to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of severe forms of gender-based violence. (b) General: (i) Take all measures necessary to ensure that victims of gender-based forms of persecution who are in need of protection, regardless of their status or residence, are not returned under any circumstance to any country in which their life would be at risk or where they might be subjected to gender-based violence or to torture or ill-treatment; (ii) Ensure that the threshold for accepting asylum applications is measured not against the probability but against the reasonable likelihood that the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution or that she would be exposed to persecution upon her return; (iii) Ensure that women asylum seekers have timely information on the importance of the first interview and what constitutes relevant information in that context; (iv) Ensure that, whenever necessary, examiners use all the means at their disposal to produce and/or verify the necessary evidence in support of the application, including by seeking and gathering information from reliable governmental and non-governmental sources on human rights in the country of origin, in particular relating to the situation of women and girls, and taking all necessary measures in that regard; (v) Ensure, when interpreting all legally recognized grounds for asylum, the classification of claims for asylum on the basis of gender under the grounds of membership of a particular social group, where necessary, and consider adding sex and/or gender and other status to the list of grounds for refugee status in national asylum legislation;

15 July 2019 | Judicial Body: UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) | Legal Instrument: 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) | Topic(s): Domestic violence - Forced marriage - Gender-based persecution - Women's rights | Countries: Denmark - Jordan - Palestine, State of

The primary issue to be determined by the Tribunal is whether the appellant is excluded from the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (“Refugee Convention”) by the operation of Article 1D which applies, in certain circumstances, to persons being protected or assisted by United Nations (“UN”) organs and agencies other than the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”). If so, the appellant will not be entitled to recognition as a refugee under section 129 of the Immigration Act 2009 (“the Act”).

28 May 2019 | Judicial Body: New Zealand: Immigration and Protection Tribunal | Legal Instrument: 1951 Refugee Convention | Topic(s): Cessation clauses - Palestinian | Countries: Lebanon - New Zealand - Palestine, State of

8 June 2018 | Judicial Body: Belgium: Conseil du Contentieux des Etrangers | Legal Instrument: 2013 Dublin III Regulation (EU) | Topic(s): Reception - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Belgium - Greece - Palestine, State of

violations of Article 3 (prohibition of torture) of the European Convention on Human Rights, because of the Government’s failure to effectively investigate Mr Husayn’s allegations and because of its complicity in the CIA’s actions that had led to ill-treatment; and violations of Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Article 8 (right to respect for private life), and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), in conjunction with Article 3.

31 May 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 - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Jurisdiction | Countries: Lithuania - Palestine, State of - United States of America

28 June 2017 | Judicial Body: Germany: Verwaltungsgericht | Legal Instrument: 1951 Refugee Convention | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Military service / Conscientious objection / Desertion / Draft evasion / Forced conscription - Palestinian - Persecution based on political opinion - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Torture | Countries: Germany - Palestine, State of

8 June 2017 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Immigration Detention - National security / Public order - Right to liberty and security - Statelessness | Countries: Bulgaria - Palestine, State of

28 March 2017 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Immigration Detention - Prison or detention conditions - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Iraq - Palestine, State of - Russian Federation - Somalia - Syrian Arab Republic

25 May 2016 | Judicial Body: Belgium: Conseil du Contentieux des Etrangers | Topic(s): Family reunification | Countries: Belgium - Palestine, State of