B.L. and Others v. France - 48104/14 [2020] ECHR PR1 (09 January 2020)

B.L. and Others v. France - 48104/14 [2020] ECHR PR1 (09 January 2020)

The Court found that the applicants (nos. 2 to 23) had lost interest in the proceedings by failing to maintain contact with their lawyer. Regarding E. G., the Court held that she failed to provide specific evidence of her living conditions or inability to meet basic needs and had been allocated housing, thus her complaint did not reach the severity required by Article 3 ECHR.

Citation
[2020] ECHR PR1
Parties
Applicants: B. L. and Others; Respondent: France
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
09 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Decision on Admissibility
Outcome
application declared inadmissible
Legal Topics
Article 3 ECHR, Prohibition of Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, Asylum Seeker Accommodation, Inadmissibility
Human Rights Law Asylum Law Article 3 ECHR Prohibition of Inhuman or Degrading Treatment Asylum Seeker Accommodation Inadmissibility

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B. L. and Others

Applicants

France

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Decision on Admissibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conditions in the temporary tent camp on Avenue de Blida, Metz, amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the applicants substantiated their claims regarding poor living conditions

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicants (nos. 2 to 23) had lost interest in the proceedings by failing to maintain contact with their lawyer. Regarding E. G., the Court held that she failed to provide specific evidence of her living conditions or inability to meet basic needs and had been allocated housing, thus her complaint did not reach the severity required by Article 3 ECHR.

Court Disposition

application declared inadmissible