Judgment Mohammed v. Austria - transfer of asylum-seeker under Dublin Regulation

CtEDO 2015-11-03 0,89

s of asylum-seekers under the Dublin Regulation have recently been summarised in Tarakhel, cited above, §§ 28-48); Hussein Diirshi v. the Netherlands and Italy and 3 other applications ((dec.), nos. 2314/10, 18324/10, 47851/10 & 51377/10, §

CtEDO 2012-01-11 0,89

S3 422772-1/2011) and on 12 December 2011 (No. S6 422809-1/2011). COMPLAINTS 1. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that his expulsion to Hungary would subject him to treatment contrary to that provision in that he wou

CtEDO 2015-04-07 0,89

2015 the Government informed the Court that Austria would exercise its right under the Dublin Convention to assume the examination of the applicants’ asylum claims. 10. Subsequently, the applicants were given an opportunity to comment. On 1

CtEDO 2015-04-07 0,89

s of Court, and requested the Austrian Government to stay the applicants’ expulsion to Italy until further notice. 10. On 4 November 2014 the Court gave its judgment in Tarakhel v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 29217/12, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), whi

CtEDO 2009-11-03 0,89

origin? 4a. What procedure will be applied to the applicant – as an asylum seeker transferred in application of the Dublin Regulation –, upon his return to Greece? 4b. Can this procedure be considered as constituting an effective remedy bef