Language Switcher

Navigation

Sources Archives: Case-law

M.K v. The Agency for the Welfare of Asylum Seekers (Malta), Ref. AA.10.23, 16 May 2023

On 22/06/2023 in

In this case, the appellant lodged an appeal regarding his age assessment regarding Article 25A(7) of the Immigration Act, Chapter 217 of the Laws of Malta. The Immigration Appeals Board Division considered the bone age test conducted by the Agency for the Welfare of Asylum Seekers. However, given the high margin of error of these tests of 2-3 years and the lack of accuracy when looking at physical traits, the IAB Div I determined a holistic approach was most appropriate to determine the age of the appellant. As such, looking at the appellant’s date of birth as written on his vaccine card, birth certificate, and school certificate, IAB Div I concludes that the appellant was a minor and that AWAS had wrongly issued a decision using imprecise research.

Source: here

Continue Reading

Kanagaratnam v. Belgium, Application No. 15297/09, Judgment of 13 December 2011

On 22/06/2023 in

This decision concerns the detention of four Sri Lankan asylum seekers of Tamil origin, a woman and her three children (aged 13, 11 and 8 respectively at the time of the events), for almost four months in a closed transit centre, with a view to their deportation after the Belgian authorities refused them entry and while their return was pending. The court found a violation of Article 3 (for the three children) and Article 5 § 1 (for all applicants).

Source: official link

Continue Reading

KEBE and others, Application no. 12552/12, Judgment of 12 January 2017 & Nur Ahmed and others, Application no. 42779/12, Judgment of 18 June 2020 & Nur and others, Application no. 77647/11, Judgment of 16 July 2020 & M.S., Application no. 17189/11, Judgment of 11 June 2020 v. Ukraine

On 10/03/2023 in

This group of cases concerns various deficiencies in the procedures related to different aspects of the treatment of asylum-seekers in Ukraine at different times in 2011-2020, among others various problems in detention of persons present in Ukraine in an irregular manner, in violation of Article 5 § 1 (f). The Court has noted that the procedure as regards unaccompanied migrant children and the information that there were no recent cases of detention of such children at the centres for temporary accommodation of foreigners and stateless persons who are present in Ukraine illegally, encouraged the authorities to take the steps necessary to consolidate this trend and to ensure adequate treatment of such children.

Source: click here

Continue Reading

P.N., K.K. and O.M. on behalf of S.N., Mh.K., Mu.K., S.M., K.M and J.M. v. Finland, communication No. 100/2019, 12 September 2022

On 10/03/2023 in

In this case, the applicants on behalf of their grandchildren (all Finland nations) who were held in a camp and had no access to legal aid or to legal information that would enable them to submit a communication. The child victims were born in the Syrian Arab Republic and were being held in the Hawl camp in the north-east of the country, which was under the control of the Syrian Democratic Forces, where the applicants claimed that they were at risk of irreparable harm in the knowledge of the Finnish Government. The applicants claimed that the State party has not taken the measures necessary to repatriate the child victims to Finland and that this failure to act constitutes a violation of articles 2, 6, 19, 20, 24, 27, 28, 37, 39 and 40 of the Convention, as well as of article 7 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the involvement of children in armed conflict. The Committee found a violation of Articles 6 (1) and 37 (a) of the Convention and recommended that the State party a) takes urgent positive measures to repatriate the child victims, acting in good faith, b) supports the reintegration and resettlement of each child who has been repatriated or resettled, and c) takes additional measures, in the meantime, to mitigate the risks to the lives, survival and development of the child victims while they remain in the north-eastern Syrian Arab Republic.

Source: PDF

Continue Reading

M.E. v. Spain, Communication No. 78/2019, 10 March 2022

On 10/03/2023 in

This case concerned a 17-year old Moroccan national that was intercepted while attempting to enter Spain in a migrant boat. He had no papers and was taken to a hospital where an X-ray of his left hand was taken, the examination of which indicated that he was over 18 years of age. Following to this, his expulsion as well as his detention were ordered. He claimed that the State had violated his rights under article 3, read in conjunction with articles 18 (2), and 20 (1) as well as articles 8, 12, 20, 27 and 29 of the Convention. In accordance with article 6 of the Optional Protocol, on 19 March 2019 the working group on communications, acting on behalf of the Committee, requested the State party to take interim measures – namely, to suspend the execution of the author’s deportation order pending the Committee’s consideration of his case and to transfer him to a child protection facility. Later, the State party submitted a request to close the case explaining that the Prosecutor’s Office had issued an age determination ruling officially recognizing the author as a minor and ordering his transfer to a juvenile protection centre the Committee considered that the recognition of the author as a minor rendered the case moot and decided to discontinue its consideration, in accordance with rule 26 of its rules of procedure relating to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure.

Source: PDF

Continue Reading