Skip to content
Back to explore
Justice Matrix · Case profile

CASE OF ASADY AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA (no. 24917/15)

Council of Europe (ECtHR)European Court of Human Rights2020
AdverseLow precedentNeeds review
Needs review

Machine-found from the cited source, not yet confirmed by a human. Open the source before relying on it.

Strategic issue

What was at stake

Whether the applicants' removal would constitute a collective expulsion of aliens contrary to the prohibition on collective expulsion.

Facts

What happened

The applicants, a group of individuals from Afghanistan, were apprehended while attempting to cross the border into Slovakia. They were detained and subsequently faced removal to Hungary, where they claimed they would be at risk of being sent back to Afghanistan without proper asylum procedures.

Key holding

What the court decided

The Court found no violation of the prohibition on collective expulsion of aliens.

Reasoning

How the court got there

The Court determined that the applicants' removal did not constitute a collective expulsion as they were not removed en masse but rather on an individual basis. The Court emphasized that each applicant's situation was assessed, and the necessary legal procedures were followed, ensuring compliance with the prohibition on collective expulsion.

Authorities

Statutes and cases cited

Statutes & treaties
  • § Refugee Convention art. 33
Cases cited
  • Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister
Issue areas

Categories

article-4-prot-4asylumnon-refoulementrefugee
Source

Authoritative link

Source of record
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-209170
Disclaimer and licence

This is a research and reference resource, not legal advice. Summaries are prepared from public sources and may be incomplete or out of date. Always read the original judgment or document and consult a qualified lawyer in the relevant jurisdiction before acting.

Narrative summaries on this page are licensed CC BY-NC 4.0. Reuse them with attribution to JusticeHub for non-commercial purposes. Original judgments and source documents remain under their own terms; follow the authoritative link for the source of record.