Case Law

violation of article 8 - child’s best interests cannot be confined to keeping the family together - detention is mesure of last resort -consideration should be given to alternative measures - detention of minors called for greater speed and diligence on the part of the authorities

10 April 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 - Right to family life | Countries: Germany - Poland - Russian Federation

The possibility of introducing an asylum claim is a conditio sine qua non for the effective protection of persons in need of international protection. If authorities do not guarantee unhindered access to the asylum procedure, asylum-seekers can not make use of the procedural rights foreseen within the asylum procedure and are at risk of being arrested at any time. Hence even if the asylum procedure offers effective safeguards, these are of no use if, as in the present case, the asylum claim is not registered for a long period of time. [85] violation of article 13 (effective remedy) in combination with article 3 ECHR.

15 March 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Access to procedures - Effective protection - Effective remedy - Registration | Countries: Egypt - Greece - Sudan - Türkiye

- detention arbitrary since it should have been clear to the authorities that removal was impracticable - violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the lack of a possibility to take proceedings for review of the continued detention

13 February 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 - Statelessness | Countries: Russian Federation

- the expulsion of the applicant, whose conviction for terrorist offences had been known to the Algerian authorities, had exposed him to a real and serious risk of treatment contrary to Article 3. - French authorities deliberately created a situation whereby the applicant would have great difficulty in submitting a request for an interim measure to the Court, and had lowered the level of protection under Article 3 of the Convention. - acutely aware of the extent of the danger posed to the community by terrorism and that it was legitimate for Contracting States to take a very firm stand against those who contributed to terrorist acts.

1 February 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Expulsion - Terrorism - Torture | Countries: Algeria - France

This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and Article 4 of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council 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 (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).

25 January 2018 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Credibility assessment - Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) | Countries: Hungary - Nigeria

Execution of judgment: http://hudoc.exec.coe.int/ENG?i=004-49349

9 January 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - National security / Public order - Terrorism | Countries: Morocco - Sweden