Language Switcher

Navigation

Key Words Archives: Reasonable time

Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals

On 07/09/2022 in

The “Return Directive”, with implementation deadline of 24 December 2010, sets up a common set of rules for the return of non-EU nationals who do not or who no longer fulfil the conditions for entry, stay or residence within the territory of any EU country, and the related procedural safeguards. It establishes a legal obligation for Member States to take due account of the best interests of the child (Article 5) and to use immigration detention of children and families only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time (Articles 15 and 17).

Source: official link

Continue Reading

UNHCR, Refugee Children: Guidelines on Protection and Care

On 07/09/2022 in

The UNHCR Guidelines aim to define the principles and practical measures for the protection and assistance of refugee children. UNHCR argues that because detention can be very harmful to refugee children, it must be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time. The same principle applies to alternative accommodation in which children are held under prison-like conditions. Families must be kept together at all times.

Source: official link

Continue Reading

Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly: A study of immigration detention practices and the use of alternatives to immigration detention of children

On 07/09/2022 in

This study from the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) provides an overview of issues relating to immigration detention practices, and promotes the use of alternatives to immigration detention of children (ATDs). The study argues that the main idea behind ATDs is identifying options which provide state authorities with a degree of control over asylum seekers while allowing for a basic freedom of movement. ATDs need to be regulated in order to avoid the arbitrary imposition of restrictions on liberty or freedom of movement and, even when alternatives apply, access to legal aid should be given to migrants, especially to children.

Source: official link

Continue Reading

CJEU, FMS and Others v. Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság Dél-alföldi Regionális Igazgatóság and Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság, Joined Cases no. C-924/19 and C-925/19 PPU, 14 May 2020

On 07/09/2022 in

Directive 2008/115 and Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation imposed on a third-country national to remain permanently in a transit zone the perimeter of which is restricted and closed, within which that national’s movements are limited and monitored, and which they cannot legally leave voluntarily, in any direction whatsoever, appears to be a deprivation of liberty, characterised by ‘detention’ within the meaning of those directives.

Source: official link

Continue Reading

Amuur v. France, ECtHR, Application No. 19776/92, Judgment of 25 June 1996

On 07/09/2022 in

The Court found that the detention of aliens pending deportation is acceptable only in order to enable States to prevent unlawful immigration while complying with their international obligations, particularly under the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the ECHR. Such holding should not be prolonged excessively, otherwise there would be a risk of it turning a mere restriction on liberty into a deprivation of liberty. In that connection account should be taken of the fact that the measure is applicable not to those who have committed criminal offences but to aliens who, often fearing for their lives, have fled from their own country.

Source: official link

Continue Reading

Saadi v. United Kingdom, ECtHR, Application No. 13229/03, Judgment of 29 January 2008

On 05/09/2022 in

The Court recalled that it is a fundamental principle that no detention which is arbitrary can be compatible with Article 5 § 1 ECHR and the notion of ‘arbitrariness’ in Article 5 § 1 extends beyond lack of conformity with national law, so that a deprivation of liberty may be lawful in terms of domestic law but still arbitrary and thus contrary to the Convention. To avoid being branded as arbitrary, therefore, detention under Article 5 § 1 (f) must be carried out in good faith; it must be closely connected to the purpose of preventing unauthorised entry of the person to the country; the place and conditions of detention should be appropriate; and the length of the detention should not exceed that reasonably required for the purpose pursued.

Source: official link

Continue Reading