Last Updated: Friday, 19 May 2023, 07:24 GMT

Case Law

Case Law includes national and international jurisprudential decisions. Administrative bodies and tribunals are included.
Filter:
Showing 1-5 of 5 results
The Queen on the application of:1) Hemmati; 2)Khalili;3) Abdulkadir; 4) Mohammed (Appellants) - and - The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) and Between The Queen on the application of SS (Respondent) -and- The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant)

The principal issues in the appeals concern the meaning and effect of Article 2(n) and Article 28 of Dublin III ("Article 2(n)" and "Article 28", respectively), which relate to the detention of an individual for the purpose of transfer to another Member State under that Regulation. Mr Hemmati and Mr Khalili also raise a distinct issue regarding whether Garnham J was right to hold that their detention was lawful by application of the usual principles of domestic law first adumbrated in Re Hardial Singh [1984] 1 WLR 704 and rehearsed in later authorities such as R (I) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 888 and Lumba v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] 1 AC 245 ("the Hardial Singh principles").

4 October 2018 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) | Legal Instrument: 2013 Dublin III Regulation (EU) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Prison or detention conditions | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria - Bulgaria - Iran, Islamic Republic of - Iraq - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Adil Hassan v Préfet du Pas-de-Calais (Case C‑647/16) Reference for a preliminary ruling

Article 26(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person must be interpreted as precluding a Member State that has submitted, to another Member State which it considers to be responsible for the examination of an application for international protection pursuant to the criteria laid down by that regulation, a request to take charge of or take back a person referred to in Article 18(1) of that regulation from adopting a transfer decision and notifying it to that person before the requested Member State has given its explicit or implicit agreement to that request.

31 May 2018 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 2013 Dublin III Regulation (EU) | Topic(s): Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: France - Germany - Iraq

The Queen on the application of: 1) HK (Iraq) 2) HH (Iran) 3) SK (Afghanistan) 4) FK (Afghanistan) - and - The Secretary of State for the Home Department

23 November 2017 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: Afghanistan - Bulgaria - Iran, Islamic Republic of - Iraq - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Case C-528/15 Al Chodor

15 March 2017 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Immigration Detention - Right to liberty and security - Transit | Countries: Czech Republic - Greece - Hungary - Iraq - Türkiye

Conclusions de l'avocat Général M. Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe: Policie ČR, Krajské ředitelství policie Ústeckého kraje, odbor cizinecké policie c Salah Al Chodor

10 November 2016 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 2013 Dublin III Regulation (EU) | Topic(s): Burden-sharing and international co-operation - Immigration Detention | Countries: Czech Republic - Iraq

Search Refworld