Mohammed v. Austria - 2283/12 - Legal Summary [2013] ECHR 742 (06 June 2013)

Mohammed v. Austria - 2283/12 - Legal Summary [2013] ECHR 742 (06 June 2013)

The applicant would no longer be at a real and individual risk of proscribed treatment in respect of detention if transferred to Hungary, due to changes in Hungarian law and practice. However, the lack of suspensive effect for the second asylum application denied the applicant access to an effective remedy against enforcement of the transfer order, constituting a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3.

Citation
[2013] ECHR 742
Parties
Applicant: Mohammed; Respondent: Austria
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
06 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Asylum and Challenge to Transfer Under Dublin II Regulation / Final Judgment
Outcome
no violation of Article 3 in event of deportation; violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3
Legal Topics
Article 3 ECHR, Article 13 ECHR, Degrading Treatment, Inhuman Treatment, Expulsion, Asylum, Dublin II Regulation, Effective Remedy
Human Rights Immigration Law European Union Law Article 3 ECHR Article 13 ECHR Degrading Treatment Inhuman Treatment Expulsion +3 more

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammed

Applicant

Austria

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Asylum and Challenge to Transfer Under Dublin II Regulation / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed transfer of the applicant to Hungary under the Dublin II Regulation would violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights
  2. 2 Whether the lack of suspensive effect for the second asylum application constituted a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant would no longer be at a real and individual risk of proscribed treatment in respect of detention if transferred to Hungary, due to changes in Hungarian law and practice. However, the lack of suspensive effect for the second asylum application denied the applicant access to an effective remedy against enforcement of the transfer order, constituting a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3.

Court Disposition

no violation of Article 3 in event of deportation; violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3

Orders

  • finding of violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage
  • no claim made in respect of pecuniary damage