Administration of justice / Suspensive effect
- Council of Europe 1
- Council of Europe: European Commission on Human Rights 1
- Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights 14
- European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union 2
- European Union: European Parliament 2
- Germany: Verwaltungsgericht 1
- International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) 1
- New Zealand: Court of Appeal 1
- UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) 2
- UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) 1
- United Kingdom: Asylum and Immigration Tribunal / Immigration Appellate Authority 1
- United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) 1
- United Kingdom: Court of Session (Scotland) 1
- United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales) 3
- United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2
- United States Supreme Court 3
- Afghanistan 1
- Armenia 1
- Belgium 4
- Brazil 1
- Cameroon 2
- Canada 1
- China 1
- Cuba 1
- Cyprus 1
- Czech Republic 1
- El Salvador 1
- France 4
- Georgia 1
- Germany 1
- Greece 2
- Guinea 1
- Haiti 1
- Iraq 1
- Italy 1
- Kyrgyzstan 2
- Lebanon 1
- Lithuania 1
- Morocco 1
- Netherlands 1
- New Zealand 1
- Nigeria 3
- Pakistan 2
- Poland 1
- Russian Federation 4
- Spain 1
- Sudan 4
- Sweden 1
- Syrian Arab Republic 1
- Tunisia 1
- Ukraine 1
- United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 6
- United States of America 6
- Uzbekistan 2
|
VG Hannover 12. Kammer, Beschluss vom 23.02.2022, 12 B 6475/21
Decision in German available here: http://www.rechtsprechung.niedersachsen.juris.de/jportal/?quelle=jlink&docid=MWRE220005233&psml=bsndprod.psml&max=true 23 February 2022 | Judicial Body: Germany: Verwaltungsgericht | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 2013 Dublin III Regulation (EU) | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Suspensive effect | Countries: Germany - Lithuania |
|
AFFAIRE M.A. c. BELGIQUE (Requête no 19656/18)
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 |
|
OPINION OF LORD TYRE In the petition O M (Petitioner) against SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Respondent) [2018] CSOH 17
The observation by the court in MIAB at paragraph 68 that many of the time-limits in the Dublin III Regulation are solely intended to regulate the position as between different member states is, at least as regards the six month time limit in article 29(1), inconsistent with the Court’s ruling that an applicant is entitled to rely upon expiry of the time limit in order to resist a transfer to the requested state. The same goes for the obiter observation of the Lord Ordinary in BM at paragraph 26 that the time limits in article 29(1) are solely intended to regulate the matter between member states. nothing in Shiri that casts any doubt on the correctness of the views expressed in both MIAB and BM regarding the suspensive effect of an administrative cancellation of removal directions falling within article 27(4). 12 March 2018 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Court of Session (Scotland) | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 2013 Dublin III Regulation (EU) | Topic(s): Suspensive effect | Countries: Sudan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
|
A.A. c. France
15 January 2015 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Appeal / Right to appeal - Armed forces / Military - Armed groups / Militias / Paramilitary forces / Resistance movements - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Suspensive effect - Torture | Countries: France - Sudan |
|
Centre public d'action sociale d'Ottignies-Louvain-La-Neuve v Moussa Abdida
18 December 2014 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Regional instruments - Return conditions - Right to health - Suspensive effect | Countries: Belgium - Nigeria |
|
Trabelsi v. Belgium
4 September 2014 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Criminal justice - Extradition - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Suspensive effect | Countries: Belgium - Tunisia - United States of America |
|
Kadirzhanov and Mamashev v. Russia
17 July 2014 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Appeal / Right to appeal - Effective remedy - Extradition - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Suspensive effect - Uzbek | Countries: Kyrgyzstan - Russian Federation |
|
Akram Karimov v. Russia
28 May 2014 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Effective remedy - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Right to liberty and security - Suspensive effect | Countries: Russian Federation - Uzbekistan |
|
A.C. et autres c. Espagne
22 April 2014 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Effective remedy - Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Right to life - Suspensive effect | Countries: Morocco - Spain |
|
Gayratbek Saliyev v. Russia
17 April 2014 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Extradition - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Generalized violence - Rejected asylum-seekers - Suspensive effect - Uzbek | Countries: Kyrgyzstan - Russian Federation |
