Case Law

This case concerned the sinking on 20 January 2014 of a fishing boat transporting 27 foreign nationals in the Aegean Sea, off the island of Farmakonisi, resulting in the death of 11 people, including relatives of the applicants. The Court found violations of Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).

7 July 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Rescue at sea / Interception at sea | Countries: Afghanistan - Greece - Palestine, State of - Syrian Arab Republic

This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 12(1)(a) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12).

3 March 2022 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 2004 Qualification Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Article 1D - Palestinian - Persons with disabilities - Statelessness - UNRWA | Countries: Lebanon - Palestine, State of - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

4 June 2021 | Judicial Body: Netherlands, The: The Hague District Court | Topic(s): Article 1D - Palestinian - UNRWA | Countries: Lebanon - Netherlands - Palestine, State of

1 October 2020 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Article 1D - Palestinian - UNRWA | Countries: Germany - Lebanon - Palestine, State of - Syrian Arab Republic

decision not final

24 August 2020 | Judicial Body: Netherlands, The: Amsterdam District Court | Topic(s): Palestinian | Countries: Netherlands - Palestine, State of

The Court found in particular that Article 5 was applicable to the applicants’ case as their presence in the transit zone had not been voluntary; they had been left to their own devices for the entire period of their stay, which had lasted between five and 19 months depending on the applicant; there had been no realistic prospect of them being able to leave the zone; and the authorities had not adhered to the domestic legislation on the reception of asylum-seekers. Given the absence of a legal basis for their being confined to the transit zone, a situation made worse by them being impeded in accessing the asylum system, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of the applicants’ rights protected by Article 5 § 1. The conditions the applicants had lived in had also been appalling: they had had to sleep in the transit zone, a busy and constantly lit area, with no access to washing or cooking facilities. There had thus also been a breach of Article 3 as their treatment had been degrading.

21 November 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Airports - Arbitrary arrest and detention - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Prison or detention conditions - Right to liberty and security - Transit | Countries: Iraq - Palestine, State of - Russian Federation - Somalia - Syrian Arab Republic

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): Exclusion clauses - Palestinian | Countries: Lebanon - New Zealand - Palestine, State of