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
| 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
|
Shizad (sufficiency of reasons: set aside) [2013] UKUT 00085 (IAC)
(1) Although there is a legal duty to give a brief explanation of the conclusions on the central issue on which an appeal is determined, those reasons need not be extensive if the decision as a whole makes sense, having regard to the material accepted by the judge. (2) Although a decision may contain an error of law where the requirements to give adequate reasons are not met, the Upper Tribunal would not normally set aside a decision of the First-tier Tribunal where there has been no misdirection of law, the fact-finding process cannot be criticised and the relevant Country Guidance has been taken into account, unless the conclusions the judge draws from the primary data were not reasonably open to him or her.
11 February 2013
| Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
| Topic(s):
Children's rights
- Credibility assessment
| Countries:
Afghanistan
- United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
|