Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights
The Court is currently made up of 47 judges, one in principle for every State signed up to the Convention. They are elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and serve for six years. Judges sit on the Court as individuals and do not represent their country. Website: www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home
- Administrative courts 1
- Anti-terrorism law 2
- Arbitrary arrest and detention 8
- Armed forces / Military 2
- Armed groups / Militias / Paramilitary forces / Resistance movements 2
- Burden of proof 2
- Citizenship / Nationality law 2
- Climate change (including environmental migrants) 2
- Combatants / Former combatants 1
- Complementary forms of protection 1
- Contemporary forms of slavery 1
- Country of origin information (COI) 6
- Credibility assessment 1
- Crime prevention 2
- Criminal justice 17
- Death penalty 2
- Decision on admissibility 12
- Denial of nationality 1
- Denial of refugee status 1
- Deportation / Forcible return 22
- Diplomatic assurances 3
- Discrimination based on race, nationality, ethnicity 2
- Drug trafficking 2
- EU Qualification Directive 1
- Effective remedy 7
- Elections 1
- Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) 3
- Exhaustion of domestic remedies 1
- Expulsion 7
- Extradition 7
- False documents 1
- Family reunification 5
- Forced labour 1
- Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment 20
- Freedom of conscience 2
- Freedom of expression 2
- Freedom of movement 1
- Freedom of religion 3
- Freedom of speech 1
- HIV and AIDS 4
- Human rights activists 1
- Human rights and fundamental freedoms 3
- Illegal entry 1
- Immigration Detention 7
- Independence of judiciary 1
- Internal armed conflict 1
- Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) 2
- International armed conflict 2
- International humanitarian law (IHL) / Geneva Conventions 1
- International protection 1
- Jurisdiction 1
- Legal representation / Legal aid 2
- Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) 8
- Mental health 2
- Mentally disadvantaged persons 1
- Military courts 1
- Multiple nationality 1
- National security / Public order 2
- Nepalis 1
- Non-refoulement 4
- Persecution based on political opinion 4
- Persecution of family members 2
- Persecution on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity 1
- Persons with disabilities 1
- Political asylum 1
- Political parties 1
- Pre-trial detention 4
- Prevention of discrimination 1
- Prison or detention conditions 3
- Proof of nationality 1
- Public health 3
- Racial / Ethnic persecution 1
- Racism / Xenophobia / Hate Crimes 1
- Refoulement 1
- Refugee / Asylum law 2
- Refugee camps 1
- Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures 1
- Regional instruments 4
- Rejected asylum-seekers 5
- Religious discrimination 2
- Religious persecution (including forced conversion) 1
- Residence permits / Residency 2
- Returnees 1
- Right to a nationality 1
- Right to family life 30
- Right to justice 8
- Right to liberty and security 9
- Right to life 5
- Roma 1
- Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness 2
- Safe third country 2
- Security forces 1
- Security situation 2
- Sexual and reproductive rights 2
- Single procedure 1
- Social group discrimination 2
- Standard of proof 1
- Survivors of trafficking / Persons at risk of trafficking 1
- Tamil 2
- Temporary admission 2
- Terrorism 7
- Torture 1
- Trafficking in persons 2
- Treaties / Agreements / Charters / Protocols / Conventions / Declarations 1
- Unaccompanied / Separated children 1
- Visas 2
- Voluntary repatriation 1
- Well-founded fear of persecution 1
|
V.C.L. and A.N. v. The United Kingdom (applications nos. 77587/12 and 74603/12)
The Court held that once the authorities had become aware of a credible suspicion that an individual had been trafficked, he or she should be assessed by a qualified person. Any decision to prosecute should follow such an assessment, and while the decision would not necessarily be binding on a prosecutor, the prosecutor would need to have clear reasons for reaching a different conclusion. In the case of both V.C.L. and A.N., the Court found that despite the existence of credible suspicion that they had been trafficked, neither the police nor the prosecution service had referred them to a competent authority for assessment; although both cases were subsequently reviewed by the prosecution service, it disagreed with the conclusion of the competent authority without giving clear reasons capable of undermining the competent authority’s conclusions; and the Court of Appeal limited itself to addressing whether the decision to prosecute had been an abuse of process. The Court therefore found that there had been a violation of Article 4 in both applicants’ cases. The Court found that, although the authorities had made some accommodations to the applicants after their guilty verdicts, the lack of any assessment of whether the applicants had been victims of trafficking may have prevented them from securing important evidence capable of helping their defence. As such the proceedings had not been fair, leading to a violation of Article 6 § 1. 16 February 2021 | 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): Survivors of trafficking / Persons at risk of trafficking - Trafficking in persons | Countries: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - Viet Nam |
|
Khan c. France (application no. 12267/16)
violation of article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment). 28 February 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Refugee camps - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Afghanistan - France - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
|
Deprivation of citizenship
January 2018 | Publisher: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law Compilations/Analyses |
|
S.S.M. v. United Kingdom
22 June 2017 | 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): Immigration Detention - Mental health - Right to liberty and security | Countries: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - Zimbabwe |
|
Ahmed v. the United Kingdom
2 March 2017 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Refugee / Asylum law - Rejected asylum-seekers | Countries: Somalia - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
|
Factsheet - Roma and Travellers
July 2016 | Publisher: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Country Reports |
|
I.A.A. and Others v. United Kingdom
31 March 2016 | 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): Decision on admissibility - Family reunification - Right to family life | Countries: Somalia - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
|
F.N. v. the United Kingdom
17 September 2013 | 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): Decision on admissibility - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Right to family life | Countries: Uganda - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
|
Abdi v. The United Kingdom
9 April 2013 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Expulsion - Immigration Detention | Countries: Somalia - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
|
H. and B. v. The United Kingdom
9 April 2013 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Regional instruments | Countries: Afghanistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
