Syrian Arab Republic
UNHCR is not responsible for the content and availability of non-UNHCR websites. Content displays in a new window.
- Amnesty International - Syria
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) - Syrian Arab Rep
- Human Rights Watch (HRW) - Syria
- Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN) - Syria
- Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) - Syria
- International Committee of the Red Cross - The ICRC in Syria
- International Crisis Group (ICG) - Syria
- Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) - Syrian Arab Republic
- ReliefWeb - Syrian Arab Republic (the)
- Syrian Human Rights Committee (SHRC)
- UNHCR - Syrian Arab Republic
- United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) - Syrian Arab Republic
- United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF)
- United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO)
- United States Department of State - Syria
- Women's Learning Partnership - Claiming Equal Citizenship
- World Food Programme (WFP) - Syria
- World Health Organization (WHO) - Syrian Arab Republic
|
VGH BW, Urteil vom 27.01.2022 – A 4 S 2443/21 –, Juris
27 January 2022 | Judicial Body: Germany: Verwaltungsgericht | Legal Instrument: 2013 Recast Asylum Procedures Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Decision on admissibility - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Housing, land and property rights (HLP) | Countries: Germany - Greece - Syrian Arab Republic |
|
M.N. and Others against Belgium (Application no. 3599/18) Grand Chamber Decision
The Court reiterated that Article 1 (obligation to respect human rights) of the European Convention limited its scope to persons within the jurisdiction of the States Parties to the Convention. In the present case, it noted that the applicants were not within Belgium’s jurisdiction in respect of the circumstances complained of under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. The Court also considered that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was inapplicable in the present case. The entry to Belgian territory which would have resulted from the visas being issued did not engage a “civil” right within the meaning of Article 6 § 1. Lastly, the Court noted that this conclusion did not prejudice the endeavours being made by the States Parties to facilitate access to asylum procedures through their embassies and/or consular representations. 5 May 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Access to procedures - Decision on admissibility - Effective remedy - Jurisdiction - Visas | Countries: Belgium - Lebanon - Syrian Arab Republic |
|
Bundesrepublik Deutschland gegen Adel Hamed (C‑540/17), Amar Omar (C‑541/17) (Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung)
13 November 2019 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Decision on admissibility - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Germany - Syrian Arab Republic |
|
Dougoz v. Greece
8 February 2000 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Decision on admissibility | Countries: Greece - Syrian Arab Republic |
|
H. v. Sweden
- 5 September 1994 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Commission on Human Rights | Topic(s): Decision on admissibility - Expulsion | Countries: Sweden - Syrian Arab Republic |
|
H. v. Sweden
- 4 March 1994 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Commission on Human Rights | Topic(s): Decision on admissibility - Expulsion | Countries: Sweden - Syrian Arab Republic |
