Strasbourg Observers

View posts from: Asylum Seekers

  • Guest Blogger

M.A. v. Belgium: the (in)voluntary return of a Sudanese migrant and the dangers of informal migration cooperation with third countries

December 03, 2020

By Eleonora Frasca, PhD Researcher in EU Migration Law at UCLouvain, Member of EDEM (Equipe droit européen et migrations) On 27 October 2020, the Court delivered its ruling in the case of M.A. v. Belgium (press release available in English). The case concerns the deportation of a Sudanese national, who was apprehended without documents by […]

  • Guest Blogger

A camel’s nose under the tent: the Court’s failure to discuss evidence in B.G. and Others v France

October 23, 2020

By Anne-Katrin Speck,[*] PhD Researcher within the ERC-funded project DISSECT: Evidence in International Human Rights Adjudication at Ghent University Timing can be a peculiar thing sometimes. On 10 September 2020, a Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights ruled on the case of B.G. and Others v France,[†] finding that the accommodation conditions endured for several […]

  • Guest Blogger

Systematic push back of ‘well behaving’ asylum seekers at the Polish border: M.K. and Others v. Poland

October 07, 2020

Francesco Luigi Gatta, Research Fellow, UCLouvain, EDEM On 23 July 2020, the ECtHR delivered its judgment in the case M.K. and Others v. Poland, concerning the removal of certain Russian families to Belarus, after they had repeatedly and unsuccessfully tried to lodge asylum applications at the Polish border. With an encouraging decision, the Court found […]

  • Guest Blogger

Reaching the dead-end: M.N. and others and the question of humanitarian visas

May 07, 2020

By Moritz Baumgärtel M.N. and others v. Belgium confronted the ECtHR with the question whether Article 3 of the ECHR places an obligation on State Parties to provide short-term humanitarian visas in their foreign embassies and consulates to potential asylum seekers. The Court, assembled in its Grand Chamber, found the case to be outside the […]

  • Guest Blogger

N.D. and N.T. v. Spain: defining Strasbourg’s position on push backs at land borders?

March 26, 2020

By Hanaa Hakiki On 13 February 2020, the Court published its long awaited Grand Chamber judgment in the case of N.D. and N.T. v. Spain, the first case addressing the Spanish policy of immediate expulsions at the Ceuta and Melilla enclaves. In a speech the Court’s president had announced that the judgment would be “instrumental […]

  • Guest Blogger

Push backs of “badly behaving” migrants at Spanish border are not collective expulsions (but might still be illegal refoulements)

February 25, 2020

By Ruben Wissing (Ghent University) On 13 February, the Grand Chamber rendered a long awaited judgment, meandering over more than one hundred pages, in the N.D. and N.T case on the push-back practices against migrants at the Moroccan-Spanish border fence surrounding the city of Melilla – the so-called devoluciones en caliente or ‘hot returns’ by […]

  • Guest Blogger

Prohibiting Collective Expulsion in Melilla: What Should We Expect from the Upcoming Grand Chamber Decision?

August 06, 2019

Raoul Wieland studies law and social work at McGill University in Montreal, Canada. He is undertaking a work placement with Amnesty International’s Strategic Litigation Unit at the International Secretariat in London. On 3 October 2017, the European Court of Human Rights released its judgment in the important case of N.D. and N.T. v Spain. Considering […]

  • Guest Blogger

Basra v. Belgium: a structural problem struck from the list

November 05, 2018

By Marjan Claes (NANSEN), Charlotte Coenen (NANSEN), Ellen Desmet (UGent), Sylvie Saroléa (UCL) On 13 September 2018, the European Court of Human Rights struck the application of Basra v. Belgium out of its list. Mr. Basra argued not having benefited from an effective remedy in the sense of article 13 ECHR, with respect to his […]

  • Guest Blogger

JR and Others v Greece: what does the Court (not) say about the EU-Turkey Statement?

February 21, 2018

By Annick Pijnenburg, PhD researcher at Tilburg University 25 January 2018 is a date to remember for European refugee lawyers. In Luxembourg, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled in Case C-473/16 that an asylum seeker may not be subjected to a psychological test in order to determine his sexual orientation. At the […]

  • Guest Blogger

Judgement ND and NT v Spain: on the legality of police “push-backs” at the borders and, again, on the prohibition of collective expulsions.

October 16, 2017

By Prof. Dr. David Moya, Constitutional Law Department of the University of Barcelona, Migration Research and Studies Centre CERM, Public Law Observatory IDP Last week, the 3rd Section of the European Court of Human Rights published its Judgement ND and NT v. Spain, in a case brought before the Court by two foreigners from Mali […]

  • Strasbourg Observers

One-way ticket to Sudan: standard-setting, yet disconnection between reasoning and outcome in N.A. v. Switzerland?

June 26, 2017

By Ellen Desmet, assistant professor of migration law at Ghent University On 30 May 2017, the European Court of Human Rights decided two cases regarding the expulsion of rejected asylum seekers by Switzerland to Sudan. In A.I. v. Switzerland, the Court held unanimously that there would be a violation of Articles 2 and 3 ECHR […]

  • Guest Blogger

Systematic detention of asylum seekers at the border: on the need for an individualised necessity test

June 09, 2017

By Ruben Wissing, lawyer at UNHCR and academic assistant migration law at Ghent University In the Thimothawes judgement of 4 April 2017, the European Court of Human Rights acquits the Belgian State of the charge of having breached the right to liberty under article 5 §1 of the ECHR by systematically detaining asylum seekers at […]

  • Guest Blogger

X and X v. Belgium: a missed opportunity for the CJEU to rule on the state’s obligations to issue humanitarian visa for those in need of protection

April 14, 2017

By Helena De Vylder, lawyer at the Flemish Integration Agency (Agentschap voor Integratie en Inburgering) On 7 March 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) gave a preliminary ruling in the case PPU X and X v. Belgium. Against the recommendations of the Advocate General, the CJEU left the responsibility for granting […]

  • Guest Blogger

V.M. and others v. Belgium: The tragic story of yet another “disappeared case”

January 18, 2017

Guest post by Moritz Baumgärtel, lecturer and researcher at the Department of European and International Public Law at Tilburg University. Moritz recently defended his PhD at the Université libre de Bruxelles. His project was a part of the IAP research network “The Global Challenge of Human Rights Integration: Towards a Users’ Perspective”. On 17 November […]

  • Guest Blogger

On a positive note: B.A.C. v. Greece

November 21, 2016

By Ellen Desmet, assistant professor of migration law at Ghent University. On 13 October 2016, the European Court of Human Rights unanimously found in B.A.C. v. Greece that the Greek state’s omission to decide on an asylum application during more than twelve years violated Article 8 as well as Article 13 in conjunction with Article […]

  • Guest Blogger

Khan v. Germany, Episode II: The Empire strikes out

October 31, 2016

Guest post by Benoit Dhondt, Belgian lawyer specialized in migration and refugee law. As a teaching assistant, he is also connected to the Human Rights Centre of Ghent University, more specifically its Human Rights and Migration Law Clinic. Several practitioners were disappointed with the road the ECtHR traveled in Khan v. Germany last year. With […]

  • Guest Blogger

The potential of a vulnerability-based approach: some additional reflections following O.M. v Hungary

October 25, 2016

Guest post by Denise Venturi, PhD Student in International Law, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna (Italy) and KU Leuven (Belgium) As has recently been noted in this blog, the case of O.M. v Hungary adds another tile to the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) mosaic on vulnerability. The present blog post seeks to start from these […]

  • Guest Blogger

G.J. v. Spain and Access to Justice for Victims of Human Trafficking

September 01, 2016

Guest post by Ruth M. Mestre i Mestre, Human Rights Institute, University of Valencia. The G.J. v. Spain Decision (App. no. 59172/12) shows many of the problems victims of human trafficking encounter to access justice. It is, sadly, one of those cases where formalities swallow justice, since the outcome could have been totally different had […]

  • Salvo Nicolosi

F.G. v Sweden: fine-tuning the risk assessment in asylum claims

April 04, 2016

By Salvo Nicolosi In the Grand Chamber’s ruling of last 23 March 2016, the Strasbourg judges came back on appeal to the controversial case of F.G. v. Sweden, which on 16 January 2014 had divided the Chamber’s judges as to the assessment of the risk of persecution for an Iranian national who had applied for […]

  • Guest Blogger

Migrants’ avoidance of the European Court of Human Rights concerns us all

February 10, 2016

By Marie-Bénédicte Dembour, Professor of Law and Anthropology at the Brighton Business School, University of Brighton (*) This post has been re-published on When Humans Become Migrants Blog. Every year towards the end of January, the President of the European Court of Human Rights holds a press conference that takes stock of the previous year. […]

1 2 3