Latest News

Finland: Supreme Administrative Court ruling that mere suspicion cannot exceed evidence threshold for exclusion clauses relating to membership of terrorist organisation

Tuesday, January 12, 2021

On 12 January 2021, the Supreme Administrative Court of Finland ruled in case KHO: 2021: 6 that mere suspicion or speculation is not sufficient to exceed the evidence threshold for the application of exclusion clauses in relation to membership of terrorist organisation.

Germany: Higher Administrative Court cancels removal of international protection beneficiary to Greece

Thursday, January 21, 2021

On 21 January 2021, the Higher Administrative Court of North Rhine Westphalia published its judgment concerning the removal of an Eritrean national to Greece.

CCPR: Failure of Italian authorities to respond promptly to distress calls from sinking vessel

Wednesday, January 27, 2021

On 27 January 2021, the Human Rights Committee published its views concerning the communication CCPR/C/130/D/3042/2017 submitted by A.S, D.I O.I and G.D on their own behalf and on behalf of 13 of their relatives who were on board a vessel that shipwrecked in the Mediterranean Sea in October 2013, causing the estimated death of more than 200 people.

Latest Cases

Country of Applicant: Afghanistan, Iran

The absence of food provision raised an issue of Article 3 in respect of the first applicant, given his state of total dependency on the Hungarian government during his stay at the Röszke transit zone. The physical conditions of the container in which the family stayed in, the unsuitable facilities for children, irregularities in the provision of medical services, and the prolonged stay in the area amounted to a violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicant mother and the children.

The family’s stay at the Röszke transit zone amounted to deprivation of liberty due to, inter alia, the lack of any domestic legal provisions fixing the maximum duration of the applicants’ stay, the excessive duration of the applicants’ stay and the conditions in the transit zone. Their deprivation of liberty was unlawful under Article 5 (1), as there was no strictly defined statutory basis for the applicants’ detention and no formal decision complete with reasons for detention had been issued by the Hungarian authorities.

Article 5 (4) was also violated because he applicants did not have avenue in which the lawfulness of their detention could have been decided promptly by a court.

Country of Applicant: Unknown

The Return Directive does not prevent a Member State from placing in administrative detention a third-country national residing illegally on its territory, in order to carry out the forced transfer of that national to another Member State in which that national has refugee status, where that national has refused to comply with the order to go to that other Member State and it is not possible to issue a return decision to him or her.

Country of Applicant: Sri Lanka

The fact that a person cannot be repatriated under Article 3 of the ECHR does not imply that that person should be granted a leave to reside in the host country by way of subsidiary protection under Directive 2004/83. The person concerned is eligible for subsidiary protection only if there is a real risk of him being intentionally deprived, in his country of origin, of appropriate health care.

About EDAL

The European Database of Asylum Law (EDAL) is an online database managed by the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) and a compilation of summaries of refugee and asylum case law from the courts of 22 European states, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The summaries are published in English and in the relevant state’s national language.

For more information please see here.

If you are interested in contributing an article on a relevant subject to the EDAL blog or would like to inform us about an important national judgment, please kindly send an email to Stavros Papageorgopoulos (