Immigration law / Deportation / Forcible return

2 July 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Comments on National Legislation

The Committee considered that the State party failed to adequately assess the author’s real, personal and foreseeable risk of returning to Afghanistan, in particular taking into account his father’s alleged threats of revenge and his trauma as a result of parental abuse. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the State party failed to give due consideration to the consequences of the author’s personal situation in Afghanistan and concludes that his removal to Afghanistan by the State party would constitute a violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant.

30 April 2021 | Judicial Body: UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Human rights law | Countries: Afghanistan - Sweden

1. Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, read in conjunction with Article 5(a) of that directive and Article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that, before issuing a return decision against an unaccompanied minor, the Member State concerned must carry out a general and in-depth assessment of the situation of that minor, taking due account of the best interests of the child. In this context, that Member State must ensure that adequate reception facilities are available for the unaccompanied minor in question in the State of return. 2. Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/115, read in conjunction with Article 5(a) of that directive and in the light of Article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may not distinguish between unaccompanied minors solely on the basis of the criterion of their age for the purpose of ascertaining whether there are adequate reception facilities in the State of return. 3. Article 8(1) of Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as precluding a Member State, after it has adopted a return decision in respect of an unaccompanied minor and has been satisfied, in accordance with Article 10(2) of that directive, that that minor will be returned to a member of his or her family, a nominated guardian or adequate reception facilities in the State of return, from refraining from subsequently removing that minor until he or she reaches the age of 18 years.

14 January 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 2008 Returns Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Children's rights - Deportation / Forcible return - Reception - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Guinea - Netherlands

8 January 2021 | Publisher: National Legislative Bodies / National Authorities | Document type: National Legislation

January 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: General Comments/Recommendations

The case concerned the applicant’s removal to Sudan by the Belgian authorities in spite of a court decision ordering the suspension of the measure. The Court found in particular that on account of procedural defects attributable to the Belgian authorities prior to the applicant’s removal to Sudan, he had been prevented from pursuing the asylum application that he had lodged in Belgium and the Belgian authorities had not sufficiently assessed the real risks that he faced in Sudan. In addition, by deporting the applicant in spite of the court order to suspend the measure, the authorities had rendered ineffective the applicant’s successful appeal.

27 October 2020 | 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): Deportation / Forcible return - Effective remedy - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Suspensive effect | Countries: Belgium - Sudan

31 August 2020 | Publisher: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law Compilations/Analyses

June 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae

31 December 2019 | Publisher: National Legislative Bodies / National Authorities | Document type: National Legislation

In such circumstances, the Committee considers that the Refugee Appeals Board failed to adequately assess the author’s real, personal and foreseeable risk if he were returned to Afghanistan, which is based not solely on his profile as a former employee of the international forces but also on the risk of future ill-treatment by the Taliban which reasonably follows from his individual circumstances including his past ill-treatment in his country of origin.

18 November 2019 | Judicial Body: UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) | Topic(s): Combatants / Former combatants - Deportation / Forcible return - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: Afghanistan - Denmark