Protection

9 February 2023 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae

The Swiss authorities' decision to return a Zimbabwean national to his country of origin violated Article 3 of the Convention against Torture. The right to an effective remedy contained in Article 3 requires an opportunity for an effective, independent and impartial review of the decision to expel or return when there is a plausible allegation that issues under Article 3 arise.

11 November 2022 | Judicial Body: UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Convention against Torture (CAT) - Non-refoulement | Countries: Switzerland

1. The applicant complained that his extradition to China would violate Article 3 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as – if extradited and tried – he would be at risk of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment; moreover, he would be denied a fair trial. He also complained under Article 5 § 1 that his detention pending extradition was unreasonably long and, therefore, arbitrary.

6 October 2022 | 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): Diplomatic assurances - Extradition - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: China - Poland

Article 33(2)(d) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, read in conjunction with Article 2(q) thereof and Article 2 of Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark annexed to the EU Treaty and to the FEU Treaty, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State other than the Kingdom of Denmark which provides for the possibility of rejecting as inadmissible, in whole or in part, an application for international protection within the meaning of Article 2(b) of that directive, which has been made to that Member State by a national of a third country or a stateless person whose previous application for international protection, made to the Kingdom of Denmark, has been rejected by the latter Member State.

22 September 2022 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 2013 Dublin III Regulation (EU) | Topic(s): Decision on admissibility - International protection - Safe third country | Countries: Denmark - Georgia - Germany

22 September 2022 | Publisher: Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers | Document type: Decisions

1. Article 23(1) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, read in conjunction with Article 45(4) of that directive and in the light of the general principle of EU law relating to the right to sound administration and of Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as: precluding national legislation which provides that, where a decision rejecting an application for international protection or withdrawing such protection is based on information the disclosure of which would jeopardise the national security of the Member State in question, the person concerned or his or her legal adviser can access that information only after obtaining authorisation to that end, are not provided even with the substance of the grounds on which such decisions are based and cannot, in any event, use, for the purposes of administrative procedures or judicial proceedings, the information to which they may have had access. 2. Article 4(1) and (2), Article 10(2) and (3), Article 11(2) and Article 45(3) of Directive 2013/32, read in conjunction with Article 14(4)(a) and Article 17(1)(d) of Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, must be interpreted as: precluding national legislation under which the determining authority is systematically required, where bodies entrusted with specialist functions linked to national security have found, by way of a non-reasoned opinion, that a person constituted a danger to that security, to refuse to grant that person subsidiary protection, or to withdraw international protection previously granted to that person, on the basis of that opinion. 3. Article 17(1)(b) of Directive 2011/95 must be interpreted as: not precluding an applicant from being excluded from being eligible for subsidiary protection, pursuant to that provision, on the basis of a criminal conviction of which the competent authorities were already aware when they granted to that applicant, at the end of a previous procedure, refugee status which was subsequently withdrawn.

22 September 2022 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 2011 Recast Qualification Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Asylum-seekers - Exclusion clauses - International protection - National security / Public order - Statelessness | Countries: Hungary

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,Joins to the merits the Government’s objection as to the first applicant’s victim status regarding her complaint under Article 3 of the Convention and rejects it; Declares the first applicant’s complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning her removal from Ukraine and the alleged lack of effective domestic remedies in that regard admissible and the applicants’ remaining complaints under Articles 3, 5 and 13 inadmissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention; Holds that there is no need to examine the first applicant’s complaint under Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention; Holds that the respondent State has failed to comply with its obligation under Article 34 of the Convention

15 September 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Non-refoulement - Rejection at border | Countries: Kyrgyzstan - Ukraine

6 September 2022 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae