ECtHR jurisprudence: Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland, judgment of 8 November 2021, Application Nos. 49868/19 and 57511/19

ECtHR jurisprudence: N/A

ECtHR jurisprudence: In the case under consideration, ECtHR jurisprudence was referred to indirectly by invoking the protection of fundamental rights, particularly through:Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment. This was referenced in relation to the risk of mistreatment upon the transfer of the applicant under the Dublin III Regulation.Article 8 of the ECHR was indirectly invoked concerning the right to respect for family life, which is relevant in assessing whether the transfer under the Dublin III Regulation could lead to a violation of family unity, given the applicant's marriage to a Polish national.In particular, the B.S. v. Spain and Tarakhel v. Switzerland cases are often cited in similar situations concerning the risk of human rights violations in the context of the Dublin transfers. However, the decision did not explicitly mention these cases, focusing more on the CJEU case law.

ECtHR jurisprudence: Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR): Particularly Articles 6 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) were mentioned in the context of the applicant’s rights to appeal against deportation and protection from forced return.The following references were made in the legal argumentation by the applicant’s legal counsel, not by the court itself:G.R. v. Poland (Application no. 28871/18): Although this is not fully elaborated in the decision, it is clear that the case was brought before the ECtHR, and the national court was aware of this pending case, which involved the potential breach of the right to liberty and security (Article 5 ECHR) and protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3 ECHR). The fact that these matters were under review by the ECtHR influenced the national court's approach.

ECtHR jurisprudence: N/A

ECtHR jurisprudence: N/A

ECtHR jurisprudence: Art. 2 and 3, 13, 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Art.  3 and 4 of the Protocol no 4 Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, §§ 128-129, ECHR 2005-I).

ECtHR jurisprudence: N/A

ECtHR jurisprudence: N/A

ECtHR jurisprudence: Not indicated