Strasbourg Observers

View posts from: Asylum Seekers

  • Jean-Baptiste Farcy

The Belgian reception crisis before the ECtHR: the Court orders Belgium to respect the rule of law

December 02, 2022

By Jean-Baptiste Farcy The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ordered interim measures against Belgium for failing to offer material receptions conditions to 149 asylum-seekers. In the past year, the Belgian government has failed to provide shelter to asylum-seekers due to an alleged lack of reception facilities. Thousands of domestic judgments have also been disregarded […]

  • Daniel Simon & Dr. Mark Klaassen

Age assessment and the presumption of minority as a prerequisite for effective human rights protection of asylum seekers: a discussion of Darboe and Camara v Italy

October 04, 2022

By Daniel Simon and Mark Klaassen There are no reliable tools to determine a person’s exact chronological age. And yet, legal safeguards for asylum seekers depend on it to a large extent. The way states determine whether an asylum seeker is a minor or not remains a widely controversial topic. In fear of abuse of […]

  • Christos Tsevas

Religious Conversion, Asylum Law and the ECtHR Case-Law: M.A.M. v. Switzerland

June 21, 2022

By Christos Tsevas In the case M.A.M. v. Switzerland, the ECtHR concluded that there would be a violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR if the applicant were returned to Pakistan in the absence of a thorough and rigorous ex nunc assessment by the Swiss authorities of the general situation of Christian converts […]

  • Vera Wriedt

Expanding exceptions? AA and others v North Macedonia, systematic pushbacks and the fiction of legal pathways

May 30, 2022

By Vera Wriedt The closure of the Greek-Macedonian border on 8 March 2016 entailed systematic pushbacks. The largest operation occurred on 14-15 March 2016, when more than 1500 refugees were summarily returned from North Macedonia to Greece. The complaint of AA and others v North Macedonia addressed this large-scale pushback operation. However, instead of condemning […]

  • 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 […]

1 2 3