FIRST SECTION DECISION
|
|
- Whitney May
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no /16 M.R. and Others against Finland The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 24 May 2016 as a Chamber composed of: Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, President, Ledi Bianku, Kristina Pardalos, Paul Mahoney, Aleš Pejchal, Armen Harutyunyan, Pauliine Koskelo, judges, and Abel Campos, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 March 2016, Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and the fact that this interim measure has been complied with, Having regard to the factual information submitted by the respondent Government, Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicants, Ms M.R. and her two minor children, are Iraqi nationals who were born in 1980, 2005 and 2008 respectively. They were represented before the Court by Ms Sini Ruutu, a lawyer practising in Helsinki.
2 2 M.R AND OTHERS v. FINLAND DECISION 2. The Finnish Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Arto Kosonen of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. A. The circumstances of the case 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicants account of their circumstances 4. The applicant mother is a Kurd from Kirkuk, Iraq, who escaped from Iraq with her husband and two children due to persecution. The applicants claimed that the husband had been threatened by the Islamic State for having denounced to the authorities persons who were in possession of firearms. He had subsequently received many death threats, for which reason the family was relocated elsewhere in Northern Iraq. Despite the internal flight, the persecution continued. The family fled first to Turkey, where their persecutors tried to kidnap the children. They then fled to Italy. 5. The applicant mother fell gravely ill after her second pregnancy in Both of her kidneys were removed and she received a kidney transplant. Due to a lack of proper medication, she was in very poor condition during their escape from Kurdistan and does not even remember being in Italy. Asylum proceedings in Finland 6. The applicants apparently arrived in Finland in July 2015 and sought asylum on 29 July The applicant mother was immediately admitted to hospital and was thereafter admitted to hospital on a monthly basis for periods of varying length. It appears that her husband has in the meantime been convicted of rape and that she has decided to divorce him. Upon their application for asylum in Finland on 29 July 2015, it was discovered that the applicants had previously been registered in Italy on 11 July On 2 February 2016 the Finnish Immigration Service (Maahanmuuttovirasto, Migrationsverket) rejected the applicants application and decided to order their return to Italy. The Service found that, on 31 August 2015, the Finnish authorities had informed the Italian Government about the applicants family situation and the scheduled arrival of the applicant mother and her children, and that the Italian authorities had not opposed to receive them. The parents were capable of taking care of their children and removal to Italy was not against the best interest of the children, in whose interest it was to live with their parents. Italy had agreed to comply with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights and was to examine the applicants asylum application. The applicants had a right to services provided by Italian authorities. In a
3 M.R. AND OTHERS v. FINLAND DECISION 3 Dublin transfer decision the substance of the asylum claim is not examined, so the decision regarding the applicants did not deal with the applicant mother s illness or her factual position as a single mother due to the pre-trial detention of the children s father. 8. By letter dated 10 February 2016 the applicants appealed to the Administrative Court (hallinto-oikeus, förvaltningsdomstolen), requesting also a stay on removal. 9. On 12 February 2016 the Administrative Court decided not to grant a stay on removal. 10. By letters dated 17 February and 8 March 2016 the applicants made their second and third requests for a stay on removal. On unspecified dates the Administrative Court refused these requests. 11. The proceedings before the Administrative Court are still pending. However, a Dublin transfer decision is enforceable, notwithstanding that the case has not been finally determined. B. Procedure under Rule The application was lodged with the Court on 11 March On 15 March 2016 the duty judge of the Court decided to suspend the examination of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court until receipt of information from the respondent Government and to put factual questions to the Finnish Government under Rule 54 2 (a), which concerned, inter alia, the guarantees obtained from the Italian authorities in relation to the applicants scheduled transfer to Italy. 13. The Finnish Government submitted their reply on 29 March In their letter, the respondent Government noted that the Italian authorities had informed the Finnish authorities of the guarantees for vulnerable cases, including families with children, by their letters of 8 June 2015 and 15 February A copy of these circular letters sent by the Dublin Unit of the Italian Ministry of the Interior (Ministero dell Interno) was attached to the Government s letter. In these circular letters the Italian Dublin Unit set out the new policy of the Italian authorities on transfers to Italy of families with small children and provided an updated list of accommodation available to such families. 14. The Finnish Government noted that the Immigration Service would transfer the medical information detailing the special needs of the applicants to the competent authorities in Italy and, accordingly, those needs would be taken care of in such a manner that the applicants would receive any necessary medical care in Italy without interruption. They noted that the Finnish authorities had made sufficient efforts to obtain individual and specific guarantees from the Italian authorities, and that there was no reason to suspect that the applicants would be separated from each other or subjected to any treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention upon
4 4 M.R AND OTHERS v. FINLAND DECISION arrival in Italy. The examination of the applicants application by the Court was premature, as no final decision by the relevant domestic courts had yet been made. Accordingly, the Government considered that the applicants application should be declared inadmissible by virtue of Article 35 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. 15. On 1 April 2016 the applicants were sent a copy of the Government s letter for information. 16. On 5 April 2016 the duty judge of the Court decided, under Rule 39, to indicate to the Finnish Government that the applicants should not be transferred to Italy for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. 17. On 22 April 2016 the applicants commented on the information submitted by the Government, maintaining that they had not been informed to date of any individual or specific guarantees concerning their possible removal to Italy. A mere agreement between Finland and Italy to keep families with children together and to arrange accommodation for them could not be regarded as sufficient. The applicants situation would be unclear if Italy could give no individual guarantees by the time of the possible removal. According to the applicants, the children s father had been convicted of rape and sentenced to two years imprisonment. The applicant mother was certain that her marriage was over, but acknowledged that the children s well-being was fully dependent on their father s presence. Regular family visits to prison had already been arranged for the children. The applicants wished the Court to continue the examination of their case. COMPLAINTS 18. The applicants complained that their removal to Italy would create a real risk of their being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. The applicant mother and her minor children were in a vulnerable situation. She was a single mother and seriously ill, needing regular medication and hospital treatment. The Finnish authorities never informed the Italian authorities about the applicants vulnerable situation and the Italian authorities never agreed to receive the applicants, this decision being made by default. There were no such guarantees as required by the Court s judgment in Tarakhel v. Switzerland. 19. The applicants also complained under Article 8 of the Convention that their removal would break the family bond with the children s father before his situation was fully examined in Finland. 20. Lastly, they complained under Article 13 of the Convention that they had no effective remedy as their removal order could be immediately
5 M.R. AND OTHERS v. FINLAND DECISION 5 enforced and they would therefore be unable to take full advantage of their right to appeal. THE LAW A. Complaint under Article 3 of the Convention 21. The applicants complained that, if the applicant mother and her children were transferred to Italy, they would be exposed to a risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention owing to the difficult living conditions of asylum-seekers in Italy. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows: No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 22. The Court reiterates the relevant principles of Article 3 of the Convention, as set out most recently in Tarakhel v. Switzerland [GC], no /12, and , ECHR 2014 (extracts), which include the need for the ill treatment to attain a minimum level of severity to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum is relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment and its physical or mental effects and, in some instances, the sex, age and state of health of the victim. 23. The Court considers that the applicants situation as a single mother and minor children is one of the relevant factors in making this assessment. The material date for making this assessment is the actual date of expulsion. However, if an applicant has not yet been removed when the Court examines the case, the relevant time for assessing the existence of the risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 will be that of the proceedings before the Court (see Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, 86, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V; Saadi v. Italy [GC], no /06, 133, ECHR 2008; M.A. v. Switzerland, no /13, 54, 18 November 2014; and Khamrakulov v. Russia, no /13, 64, 16 April 2015). 24. The applicants are to be considered as asylum-seekers in Italy. It thus has to be determined whether the situation in which the applicants are likely to find themselves in Italy can be regarded as incompatible with Article 3, taking into account the applicant mother s situation as an asylum-seeking single mother with young children and serious health problems and, as such, belonging to a particularly underprivileged and vulnerable population group in need of special protection (see Tarakhel,
6 6 M.R AND OTHERS v. FINLAND DECISION cited above, 97; and M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no /09, 251, ECHR 2011). 25. The Court reiterates that the situation in Italy for asylum-seekers cannot be compared to the situation in Greece at the time of the M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece judgment (cited above) and that the structure and overall situation of the reception arrangements in Italy cannot in themselves act as a bar to all removals of asylum-seekers to that country (see Tarakhel, cited above, ). 26. As to the applicants personal situation, they are a single mother and her two minor children. Their situation is thus similar to that of the applicants in Tarakhel (cited above), who were a family with six minor children. However, unlike the situation in Tarakhel, the Finnish authorities as regards transfers to Italy under the Dublin Regulation decide in consultation with the Italian authorities how and when the transfer of an asylum-seeker to the competent Italian authorities will take place. In particular, where a family with children is involved, prior notice of transfer is given to the Italian authorities, thus allowing the latter to identify where adequate accommodation is available. 27. The Court accepts that for efficiency reasons the Italian authorities cannot be expected to keep open and unoccupied for an extended period of time places in specific reception and accommodation centres reserved for asylum-seekers awaiting transfer to Italy in accordance with the Dublin Regulation and that, for this reason, once a guarantee of placement in a reception centre has been received by the State requesting transfer, transfer should take place as quickly as practically possible. 28. In this context, the Court notes that on 31 August 2015 the Italian Government were duly informed by the Finnish authorities about the applicants family situation and the scheduled arrival of the applicant mother and her children. The Court is confident that, when the applicants removal will take place, the Finnish authorities will duly inform the Italian authorities of the applicants removal, in order for the applicants to be taken charge of, upon arrival, in a manner adapted to the age of the children and that the family would be kept together (see Tarakhel, cited above, and the Italian authorities assurances provided for in the letter of 8 June 2015 and updated on 15 February 2016 (see paragraph 13 above)). 29. The Court notes the applicants concern that the number of places earmarked will be insufficient but, in the absence of any concrete indication in the case file, does not find it demonstrated that the applicant mother and her children will be unable to obtain such a place when they arrive in Italy. Furthermore, the Court considers that the applicants have not demonstrated that their future prospects, if returned to Italy, whether looked at from a material, physical or psychological perspective, disclose a sufficiently real and imminent risk of hardship that is severe enough to fall within the scope of Article 3.
7 M.R. AND OTHERS v. FINLAND DECISION It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 3 (a) of the Convention and therefore inadmissible pursuant to Article Consequently, the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court comes to an end. B. The remainder of the application 32. The applicants also complained under Article 8 of the Convention that their removal would break the family bond with the children s father before his situation was fully examined in Finland. They complained under Article 13 of the Convention that they had no effective remedy, as their removal order could be immediately enforced and they would therefore be unable to take full advantage of their right to appeal. 33. In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. Accordingly, this part of the application must also be rejected as manifestly ill-founded and declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 16 June Abel Campos Registrar Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska President
SECOND SECTION DECISION
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no 20159/16 F.M. and Others against Denmark The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 13 September 2016 as a committee composed of: Paul Lemmens,
More informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION
THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 51428/10 A.M.E. against the Netherlands The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 13 January 2015 as a Chamber composed of: Josep Casadevall,
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no 15636/16 N.A. and Others against Denmark The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 28 June 2016 as a Chamber composed of: Işıl Karakaş, President,
More informationFIRST SECTION. CASE OF SIMONYAN v. ARMENIA. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 7 April 2016
FIRST SECTION CASE OF SIMONYAN v. ARMENIA (Application no. 18275/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 7 April 2016 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 32971/08 by Phrooghosadat AYATOLLAHI and Hojy Bahroutz HOSSEINZADEH against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section),
More informationFOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 4539/11 by Nkechi Clareth AMEH and Others against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 30
More informationDetention for 27 days in personal space of less than 3 square metres was inhuman and degrading treatment
issued by the Registrar of the Court Detention for 27 days in personal space of less than 3 square metres was inhuman and degrading treatment In today s Grand Chamber judgment 1 in the case of Muršić v.
More informationFOURTH SECTION DECISION
FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 498/10 Piotr CIOK against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23 October 2012 as a Chamber composed of: Päivi Hirvelä, President,
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF U.N. v. RUSSIA. (Application no /15) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 26 July 2016
THIRD SECTION CASE OF U.N. v. RUSSIA (Application no. 14348/15) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 26 July 2016 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be
More informationFIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 40229/98 by A.G. and Others
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 40772/98 by Anna PANČENKO against Latvia The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 28 October 1999 as a Chamber composed
More informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 43700/07 by Haroutioun HARUTIOENYAN and Others against the Netherlands The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 1
More informationShifting Standards: The Dublin Regulation and Italy
139 Shifting Standards: The Dublin Regulation and Italy ANDREW T. RUBIN * Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. 1 I.! INTRODUCTION On April 2, 2013, the European
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF KAREMANI v. ALBANIA. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 25 September 2018
SECOND SECTION CASE OF KAREMANI v. ALBANIA (Application no. 48717/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 25 September 2018 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. KAREMANI v. ALBANIA JUDGMENT
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no 25748/15 Kemal HAMESEVIC against Denmark The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 16 May 2017 as a Chamber composed of: Robert Spano, President,
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF C. v. IRELAND. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 1 March 2012
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF C. v. IRELAND (Application no. 24643/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 1 March 2012 This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision. C. v. IRELAND JUDGMENT 1 In the case of
More informationConvention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment DECISION. Communication No. 281/2005
UNITED NATIONS CAT Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Distr. RESTRICTED * CAT/C/38/D/281/2005 ** 5 June 2007 Original: ENGLISH COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF YANKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA. (Application no. 4570/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 23 September 2010
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF YANKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA (Application no. 4570/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 23 September 2010 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationFIRST SECTION. CASE OF KNEŽEVIĆ v. CROATIA. (Application no /13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 19 October 2017
FIRST SECTION CASE OF KNEŽEVIĆ v. CROATIA (Application no. 55133/13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 19 October 2017 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. KNEŽEVIĆ v. CROATIA JUDGMENT
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 54041/14 G.H. against Hungary The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 9 June 2015 as a Chamber composed of: Işıl Karakaş, President, András
More informationFIRST SECTION. CASE OF HOVHANNISYAN v. ARMENIA. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 20 July 2017
FIRST SECTION CASE OF HOVHANNISYAN v. ARMENIA (Application no. 50520/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 20 July 2017 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. HOVHANNISYAN v. ARMENIA JUDGMENT
More informationFIRST SECTION DECISION
FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 42987/09 Sergei ANDREYEV against Estonia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 22 January 2013 as a Chamber composed of: Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
More informationFIRST SECTION. CASE OF CUNHA MARTINS DA SILVA COUTO v. PORTUGAL. (Application no /12) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 30 April 2015
FIRST SECTION CASE OF CUNHA MARTINS DA SILVA COUTO v. PORTUGAL (Application no. 66436/12) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 30 April 2015 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. CUNHA MARTINS
More informationMigration Law JUFN20. The Dublin System. Lund University / Faculty of Law / Doctoral Student Eleni Karageorgiou 2015/01/30
Migration Law JUFN20 The Dublin System The evolution of the Dublin System The Dublin system is a collection of European regulations on the determination of the state responsible to examine an asylum application.
More informationFIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
FIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 16472/04 by Ruslan Anatoliyovych ULYANOV against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 5 October 2010
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF ROSEN PETKOV v. BULGARIA. (Application no /01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 2 September 2010
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF ROSEN PETKOV v. BULGARIA (Application no. 65417/01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 2 September 2010 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION. CASE OF BOCA v. BELGIUM. (Application no /99) JUDGMENT
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION CASE OF BOCA v. BELGIUM (Application no. 50615/99) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 15 November
More informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION
THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 21563/08 N.F. against the Netherlands The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 14 January 2014 as a Chamber composed of: Josep Casadevall, President,
More informationThe Supreme Court of Norway
The Supreme Court of Norway On 18 May 2016, the Supreme Court of Norway delivered judgment in HR-2016-01051-A, (case no. 2015/1857), civil case, appeal against judgment. A (Counsel Terje Einarsen qualifying
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 17575/06 by Albert GRIGORIAN
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF CUŠKO v. LATVIA. (Application no /09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 7 December 2017
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF CUŠKO v. LATVIA (Application no. 32163/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 7 December 2017 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. CUŠKO v. LATVIA JUDGMENT 1 In the
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF A.G.A.M. v. SWEDEN JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 27 June 2013
Side 1 af 13 FIFTH SECTION CASE OF A.G.A.M. v. SWEDEN (Application no. 71680/10 (/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx#{"appno":["71680/10"]})) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 27 June 2013 This judgment will become final in
More informationTraining Seminar for Lawyers on EU Law relating to Asylum and Immigration (TRALIM)
Training Seminar for Lawyers on EU Law relating to Asylum and Immigration (TRALIM) Alessio Sangiorgi Lawyer, Italian Lawyers Union for the protection of Human Rights The Council of Europe legal system
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF KAROUSSIOTIS v. PORTUGAL. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT [Extracts] STRASBOURG. 1 February 2011 FINAL 01/05/2011
SECOND SECTION CASE OF KAROUSSIOTIS v. PORTUGAL (Application no. 23205/08) JUDGMENT [Extracts] STRASBOURG 1 February 2011 FINAL 01/05/2011 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF PRESCHER v. BULGARIA. (Application no. 6767/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 7 June 2011 FINAL 07/09/2011
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF PRESCHER v. BULGARIA (Application no. 6767/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 7 June 2011 FINAL 07/09/2011 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be subject
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF MAIORANO AND SERAFINI v. ITALY. (Application no. 997/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 25 November 2014
SECOND SECTION CASE OF MAIORANO AND SERAFINI v. ITALY (Application no. 997/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 25 November 2014 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. MAIORANO AND SERAFINI
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 45073/07 by Aurelijus BERŽINIS against Lithuania The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 13 December 2011 as a Committee composed of: Dragoljub
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF PEČENKO v. SLOVENIA. (Application no. 6387/10) JUDGMENT
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF PEČENKO v. SLOVENIA (Application no. 6387/10) JUDGMENT This judgment was revised in accordance with Rule 80 of the Rules of Court in a judgment of 29 November 2016. STRASBOURG 4 December
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF GISZCZAK v. POLAND. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 29 November 2011 FINAL 29/02/2012
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF GISZCZAK v. POLAND (Application no. 40195/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 29 November 2011 FINAL 29/02/2012 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 50230/99 by Ari LAUKKANEN
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 68611/14 Jolita GUBAVIČIENĖ against Lithuania The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 September 2015 as a Committee composed of: Paul
More informationFOURTH SECTION DECISION
FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 14491/13 V.J. against Finland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 21 October 2014 as a Chamber composed of: Ineta Ziemele, President,
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF GURBAN v. TURKEY. (Application no. 4947/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 15 December 2015
SECOND SECTION CASE OF GURBAN v. TURKEY (Application no. 4947/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 15 December 2015 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 56619/15 Rasmus MALVER against Denmark The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 29 May 2018 as a Committee composed of: Ledi Bianku, President,
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF RANGELOV AND STEFANOV v. BULGARIA. (Application no /04)
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF RANGELOV AND STEFANOV v. BULGARIA (Application no. 23240/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 1 April 2010 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF POPNIKOLOV v. BULGARIA. (Application no /02)
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF POPNIKOLOV v. BULGARIA (Application no. 30388/02) JUDGMENT (merits) STRASBOURG 25 March 2010 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION CASE OF Y.F. v. TURKEY (Application no. 24209/94) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 22 July 2003
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF ROONEY v. IRELAND. (Application no /10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 31 October 2013
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF ROONEY v. IRELAND (Application no. 32614/10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 31 October 2013 This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision. ROONEY v. IRELAND 1 In the case
More informationEuropean Court of Human Rights. Questions & Answers
European Court of Human Rights Questions & Answers Questions & Answers What is the European Court of Human Rights? These questions and answers have been prepared by the Registry of the Court. The document
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF POTCOAVĂ v. ROMANIA. (Application no /07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 17 December 2013
THIRD SECTION CASE OF POTCOAVĂ v. ROMANIA (Application no. 27945/07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 17 December 2013 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF DORIĆ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA. (Application no /13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 7 November 2017
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF DORIĆ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA (Application no. 68811/13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 7 November 2017 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. DORIĆ v. BOSNIA
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF ADIYAMAN v. TURKEY. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 9 January 2018
SECOND SECTION CASE OF ADIYAMAN v. TURKEY (Application no. 24211/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 9 January 2018 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. ADIYAMAN v. TURKEY JUDGMENT
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF G.B. AND R.B. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA. (Application no /09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 18 December 2012 FINAL 18/03/2013
THIRD SECTION CASE OF G.B. AND R.B. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA (Application no. 16761/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 18 December 2012 FINAL 18/03/2013 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the
More informationFIRST SECTION. CASE OF KAREN POGHOSYAN v. ARMENIA. (Application no /09) JUDGMENT (Just satisfaction) STRASBOURG.
FIRST SECTION CASE OF KAREN POGHOSYAN v. ARMENIA (Application no. 62356/09) JUDGMENT (Just satisfaction) STRASBOURG 29 March 2018 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF RAMISHVILI v. GEORGIA. (Application no /08)
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF RAMISHVILI v. GEORGIA (Application no. 48099/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 31 May 2018 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. RAMISHVILI v. GEORGIA JUDGMENT
More informationACT ON AMENDMENDS TO THE ASYLUM ACT. Title I GENERAL PROVISIONS. Article 1
ACT ON AMENDMENDS TO THE ASYLUM ACT Title I GENERAL PROVISIONS Article 1 This Act stipulates the principles, conditions and the procedure for granting asylum, subsidiary protection, temporary protection,
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIFTH SECTION CASE OF SVETLORUSOV v. UKRAINE (Application no. 2929/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 12
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 41092/06 by Susanne MATTENKLOTT
More informationFIRST SECTION. CASE OF KAREN POGHOSYAN v. ARMENIA. (Application no /09) JUDGMENT (Merits) STRASBOURG. 31 March 2016
FIRST SECTION CASE OF KAREN POGHOSYAN v. ARMENIA (Application no. 62356/09) JUDGMENT (Merits) STRASBOURG 31 March 2016 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF KESKINEN AND VELJEKSET KESKINEN OY v. FINLAND. (Application no /09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 5 June 2012 FINAL 05/09/2012
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF KESKINEN AND VELJEKSET KESKINEN OY v. FINLAND (Application no. 34721/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 5 June 2012 FINAL 05/09/2012 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the
More informationFIRST SECTION. CASE OF PAPOYAN v. ARMENIA. (Application no. 7205/11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 11 January 2018
FIRST SECTION CASE OF PAPOYAN v. ARMENIA (Application no. 7205/11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 11 January 2018 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. PAPOYAN v. ARMENIA JUDGMENT 1
More informationFIRST SECTION. CASE OF AKRAM KARIMOV v. RUSSIA. (Application no /12) JUDGMENT
FIRST SECTION CASE OF AKRAM KARIMOV v. RUSSIA (Application no. 62892/12) JUDGMENT This version was rectified on 28 May 2014 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court. STRASBOURG 28 May 2014 FINAL 13/10/2014
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF GHARIBYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA. (Application no /05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 13 November 2014 FINAL 13/02/2015
THIRD SECTION CASE OF GHARIBYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA (Application no. 19940/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 13 November 2014 FINAL 13/02/2015 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF ROMANESCU v. ROMANIA. (Application no /11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 16 May 2017
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF ROMANESCU v. ROMANIA (Application no. 78375/11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 16 May 2017 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF SUOMINEN v. FINLAND. (Application no /97) JUDGMENT
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION CASE OF SUOMINEN v. FINLAND (Application no. 37801/97) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 1 July
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 39022/97 by Peter O ROURKE against
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 41226/98 by I.M. against the
More informationSECOND SECTION. Communicated on 25 August Application no /14 Ahmad ASSEM HASSAN ALI against Denmark lodged on 27 March 2014
SECOND SECTION Application no. 25593/14 Ahmad ASSEM HASSAN ALI against Denmark lodged on 27 March 2014 Communicated on 25 August 2016 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Ahmad Assem Hassan Ali, is a Jordanian
More informationFIRST SECTION. CASE OF GORESKI AND OTHERS v. THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA. (Application no /04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG
FIRST SECTION CASE OF GORESKI AND OTHERS v. THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA (Application no. 27307/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 16 October 2014 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF BOTEZATU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 14 April 2015 FINAL 14/07/2015
THIRD SECTION CASE OF BOTEZATU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA (Application no. 17899/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 14 April 2015 FINAL 14/07/2015 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationConvention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
United Nations CEDAW/C/38/D/10/2005 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women Distr.: General 12 June 2007 Original: English Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination
More informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION
THIRD SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 37187/03 and 18577/08 Iaroslav SARUPICI against the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine and Anatolie GANEA and Aurelia GHERSCOVICI against the Republic of Moldova The
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF ALEKSANDR NIKONENKO v. UKRAINE. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 14 November 2013 FINAL 14/02/2014
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF ALEKSANDR NIKONENKO v. UKRAINE (Application no. 54755/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 14 November 2013 FINAL 14/02/2014 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 31246/06 by Zinaida Ivanovna
More informationA. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC] /05 Judgment [GC]
Information Note on the Court s case-law No. 116 February 2009 A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC] - 3455/05 Judgment 19.2.2009 [GC] Article 5 Article 5-1-f Expulsion Extradition Indefinite detention
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF HARTMAN v. SLOVENIA. (Application no /05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 18 October 2012 FINAL 18/01/2013
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF HARTMAN v. SLOVENIA (Application no. 42236/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 18 October 2012 FINAL 18/01/2013 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION. CASE OF BENJAMIN & WILSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION CASE OF BENJAMIN & WILSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 28212/95) JUDGMENT
More informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION
THIRD SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 14927/12 and 30415/12 István FEHÉR against Slovakia and Erzsébet DOLNÍK against Slovakia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 21 May 2013
More informationFIRST SECTION DECISION
FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 73874/11 Mohammed ABUBEKER against Austria and Italy The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 18 June 2013 as a Chamber composed of: Isabelle
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF NIELSEN v. DENMARK. (Application no /07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 2 July 2009 FINAL 02/10/2009
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF NIELSEN v. DENMARK (Application no. 44034/07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 2 July 2009 FINAL 02/10/2009 This judgment may be subject to editorial revision. NIELSEN v. DENMARK JUDGMENT 1 In
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF IBROGIMOV v. RUSSIA. (Application no /12) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 15 May 2018
THIRD SECTION CASE OF IBROGIMOV v. RUSSIA (Application no. 32248/12) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 15 May 2018 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. IBROGIMOV v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 1
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 20513/08 by Aurelijus BERŽINIS against Lithuania The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 13 December 2011 as a Committee composed of: Dragoljub
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 60974/00 by ROSELTRANS, FINLEASE
More informationFOURTH SECTION DECISION
FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 17969/10 Janina Gelena SELINA against Lithuania The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 5 September 2017 as a Committee composed of: Paulo
More informationECRE COUNTRY REPORT 2002: FINLAND
ECRE COUNTRY REPORT 2002: FINLAND ARRIVALS 1. Total number of individual asylum seekers who arrived, with monthly breakdown and percentage variation between years: Table 1: Month 2001 2002 Variation +/-(%)
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF IVANOV v. BULGARIA. (Application no /05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 5 July 2012
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF IVANOV v. BULGARIA (Application no. 41140/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 5 July 2012 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. IVANOV v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT 1 In
More information325/1999 Coll. ACT on Asylum
ASPI System status as at 3.4.2016 in Part 39/2016 Coll. and 6/2016 Coll. - International Agreements - RA845 325/1999 Coll. Asylum Act latest status of the text 325/1999 Coll. ACT on Asylum of 11 November
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF HOVHANNISYAN AND SHIROYAN v. ARMENIA. (Application no. 5065/06)
THIRD SECTION CASE OF HOVHANNISYAN AND SHIROYAN v. ARMENIA (Application no. 5065/06) JUDGMENT (merits) STRASBOURG 20 July 2010 FINAL 20/10/2010 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF BASARBA OOD v. BULGARIA. (Application no /01) JUDGMENT (merits) STRASBOURG. 7 January 2010
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF BASARBA OOD v. BULGARIA (Application no. 77660/01) JUDGMENT (merits) STRASBOURG 7 January 2010 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the
More informationCase-law concerning the European Union
April 2017 This factsheet does not bind the Court and is not exhaustive Case-law concerning the European Union To date, the European Union (EU) is not yet a Party to the European Convention on Human Rights
More informationReports of Cases. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 19 September 2018 *
Reports of Cases JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 19 September 2018 * (Reference for a preliminary ruling Urgent preliminary ruling procedure Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters European
More informationDECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 31414/96 by Andrei KARASSEV and family against
More informationAD1/3/2007/Ext/CN. Systems in Europe, September Section 3 pp
The Dublin Regulation: Ten Recommendations for Reform EUROPEAN COUNCIL ON REFUGEES AND EXILES CONSEIL EUROPEEN SUR LES REFUGIES ET LES EXILES AD1/3/2007/Ext/CN The European Council on Refugees and Exiles
More informationADVANCE UNEDITED VERSION
Distr. GENERAL CAT/C/USA/CO/2 18 May 2006 Original: ENGLISH ADVANCE UNEDITED VERSION COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE 36th session 1 19 May 2006 CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE
More informationFOURTH SECTION DECISION
FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 11987/11 Abdul Wahab KHAN against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 28 January 2014 as a Chamber composed of: Ineta
More informationFIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
FIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 18215/06 by GREENPEACE E.V. and others against Germany The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 12 May 2009 as a
More informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION
THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 37204/02 Ludmila Yakovlevna GUSAR against the Republic of Moldova and Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30 April 2013 as a Chamber
More informationField: BVerwGE: No. Professional press: Yes
Field: BVerwGE: No Asylum law Professional press: Yes Sources in law: Asylum Procedure Act Section 27a European Charter of Human Rights Article 3 Basic Law Article 103 (1) Charter of Fundamental Rights
More informationCOMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No /...
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No /... of [ ] laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 23052/04 by August KOLK Application
More information