UNHCR observations to the draft amendments of the Act no. 480/2002 Coll. On Asylum and on Amending and Supplementing of Certain Related Acts
November 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Comments on National Legislation |
Serbia: Law on Free Legal assistance
8 March 2021 | Publisher: National Legislative Bodies / National Authorities | Document type: National Legislation |
Estonia: UNHCR Submission for the Universal Periodic Review - Estonia - UPR 38th Session (2021)
October 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country Reports |
Armenia: UNHCR comments on Law on Legal Assistance in Criminal Cases
September 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Comments on National Legislation |
Belgium: UNHCR Submission for the Universal Periodic Review - Belgium - UPR 38th Session (2021)
September 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country Reports |
Austria: UNHCR Submission for the Universal Periodic Review - Austria - UPR 37th Session (2021)
July 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country Reports |
CASE OF M.S. v. SLOVAKIA AND UKRAINE
(Application no. 17189/11)
The applicant complained that the Slovakian authorities, having arrested him after he had crossed from Ukraine, had failed to inform him of the reasons for his arrest, in violation of Article 5 § 2 of the Convention. They had then returned him to Ukraine, where he had been detained in inadequate conditions in disregard of his alleged status as a minor, in breach of Article 3. He had been unable to participate effectively in the proceedings concerning his detention, and had eventually been returned to Afghanistan in the absence of an adequate assessment of the risks he had faced there, in breach of Article 3, Article 5 §§ 1, 2 and 4, and Article 13 of the Convention. Lastly, he alleged, under Article 34, that an NGO representative had been denied access to him in Ukraine, preventing him from lodging an application for an interim measure with the Court. 11 June 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): Children's rights - Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Immigration Detention - Legal representation / Legal aid - Rejected asylum-seekers | Countries: Afghanistan - Slovakia - Ukraine |
Switzerland: Judgement FAC D-2186_2020 of 4 May 2020[1537]
The legal representative of the asylum seeker from Afghanistan refused to participate in the « Dublin » hearing due to Covid-19. The hearing had been conducted without any legal representative and the SEM decided on the asylum seeker’s transfer to Germany. The FAC concludes that the absence of a legal representative was due to justifiable good cause. Thus, the hearing has no effect. 4 May 2020 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): COVID-19 - Legal representation / Legal aid - Refugee / Asylum law | Countries: Afghanistan - Switzerland |
Georgia: UNHCR Submission for the Universal Periodic Review - Georgia - UPR 37th Session (2021)
March 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country Reports |
AFFAIRE KAAK ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE (Requête no 34215/16)
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 | Document type: Case Law | 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 |