UNHCR is not responsible for the content and availability of non-UNHCR websites. Content displays in a new window.
#IBelong Campaign Update, April-June 2022
5 August 2022 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports |
#IBelong Campaign Update, January-March 2022
5 May 2022 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports |
#IBelong Campaign Update, July – September 2021
20 October 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports |
#IBelong Campaign Update, April 2021 - June 2021
9 July 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country News |
Campaign Update, January 2021 - March 2021
15 April 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country News |
Campaign Update, October 2020 - December 2020
11 January 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country News |
High-Level Segment on Statelessness: Results and Highlights
May 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports |
Campaign Update, January 2020 - March 2020
22 April 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country News |
North Macedonia: Consolidated law on Personal data protection
2020 | Publisher: National Legislative Bodies / National Authorities | Document type: National Legislation |
CASE OF ILIAS AND AHMED v. HUNGARY (Application no. 47287/15) (Grand Chamber)
The Court found in particular that the Hungarian authorities had failed in their duty under Article 3 to assess the risks of the applicants not having proper access to asylum proceedings in Serbia or being subjected to chain-refoulement, which could have seen them being sent to Greece, where conditions in refugee camps had already been found to be in violation of Article 3. In a development of its case-law, it held that Article 5 was not applicable to the applicants’ case as there had been no de facto deprivation of liberty in the transit zone. Among other things, the Court found that the applicants had entered the transit zone of their own initiative and it had been possible in practice for them to return to Serbia, where they had not faced any danger to their life or health. Their fears of a lack of access to Serbia’s asylum system or of refoulement to Greece, as expressed under Article 3, had not been enough to make their stay in the transit zone involuntary. 21 November 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Rejection at border - Right to liberty and security - Safe third country - Transit | Countries: Bangladesh - Greece - Hungary - North Macedonia - Serbia - Türkiye |