Last Updated: Thursday, 19 July 2018, 08:15 GMT

Case Law

Case Law includes national and international jurisprudential decisions. Administrative bodies and tribunals are included.
Filter:
Showing 1-10 of 12,294 results
AAH (Iraqi Kurds – internal relocation) Iraq CG UKUT 00212 (IAC)

country guidance on availability of ‘internal flight’ in the IKR for individuals of Kurdish origin - supplementing Section C and replacing Section E of AA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] Imm AR 1440; [2017] EWCA Civ 944

26 June 2018 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Country of origin information (COI) - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) | Countries: Iraq - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

CASE OF S.Z. v. GREECE (Application no. 66702/13)

violation of articles 3 and 5

21 June 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Expulsion - False documents - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Greece - Syrian Arab Republic

CASE OF ALPEYEVA AND DZHALAGONIYA v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 7549/09 and 33330/11)

Due to the authorities mishandling of procedures related to the granting of citizenship, the applicants had found themselves not only in a situation comparable to that in the Smirnova case, but also faced consequences affecting their social identity far more fundamentally as they had been deprived of any legal status in Russia. They had become stateless persons and remained so until 2010 and 2013 respectively. It had taken the authorities from 2007 until 2013 for the general problem to be solved. Since the authorities’ oversight had resulted in consequences for the applicants so severely affecting their private life, it amounted to an arbitrary interference. The authorities had thus failed to act diligently.

12 June 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Passports - Statelessness | Countries: Russian Federation

Arrêt n° 205 104

8 June 2018 | Judicial Body: Belgium: Conseil du Contentieux des Etrangers | Legal Instrument: 2013 Dublin III Regulation (EU) | Topic(s): Reception - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Belgium - Greece - Palestine, State of

CASE OF BATYRKHAIROV v. TURKEY (69929/12)

5 June 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Deportation / Forcible return - Effective remedy - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Prison or detention conditions | Countries: Kazakhstan - Turkey

CASE OF AMERKHANOV v. TURKEY (Application no. 16026/12)

5 June 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Effective remedy - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: Kazakhstan - Turkey

Décision n° 2018-709 QPC

Les mots « et dans les délais » figurant à la première phrase du paragraphe IV de l’article L. 512-1 du code de l’entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d’asile, dans sa rédaction résultant de la loi n° 2016-274 du 7 mars 2016 relative au droit des étrangers en France, sont contraires à la Constitution.

1 June 2018 | Judicial Body: France: Conseil constitutionnel | Topic(s): Appeal / Right to appeal - Effective remedy | Countries: France

Al Nashiri v. Romania (application no. 33234/12)

violations of Article 3: failure to effectively investigate allegations and because of its complicity in the CIA’s actions that had led to ill-treatment; violations of Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Article 8 (right to respect for private life), and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Articles 3, 5 and 8, violations of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), and Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 6 (abolition of the death penalty) because Romania had assisted in Mr Al Nashiri’s transfer from its territory in spite of a real risk that he could face a flagrant denial of justice and the death penalty.

31 May 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Jurisdiction | Countries: Romania - Saudi Arabia - United States of America

Abu Zubaydah v. Lithuania (application no. 46454/11)

violations of Article 3 (prohibition of torture) of the European Convention on Human Rights, because of the Government’s failure to effectively investigate Mr Husayn’s allegations and because of its complicity in the CIA’s actions that had led to ill-treatment; and violations of Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Article 8 (right to respect for private life), and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), in conjunction with Article 3.

31 May 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Jurisdiction | Countries: Lithuania - Palestine, State of - United States of America

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

Search Refworld