Judgment M.A. and Others v. Lithuania - Border guards prevented asylum applications

CtEDO 2019-05-10 0,90

decisions? 3.3. Can an appeal against the decision of the State Border Guard Service denying the applicants entry into Latvia be considered an effective domestic remedy, in view of the fact that it does not have automatic suspensive effect

CtEDO 2023-06-28 0,89

tion, the Lithuanian border guards put the applicants in a life-threatening situation, as they were stranded in the border area, going back and forth without food, drinking water and shelter and had to sleep in a forest in the cold under op

CtEDO 2022-12-02 0,88

measure indicated by the Court; under Article 13 that they did not have an effective remedy in respect of any of the aforementioned complaints; under Article 5 § 1 that they were detained without any individualised assessment of their circu

CtEDO 2021-02-08 0,87

of aliens requesting international protection (see M.K. and Others v. Poland, nos. 40503/17, 42902/17 and 43643/17, 23 July 2020). 3. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article

CtEDO 2017-10-11 0,87

applicants were returned to Belarus. On 22 May 2017 the applicants arrived at the railway border checkpoint in Vilnius. They submitted a written asylum application, prepared by their lawyer, to the Lithuanian border guards (a copy of that a