ECtHR jurisprudence: N/A

ECtHR jurisprudence: N/A

ECtHR jurisprudence: N/A

ECtHR jurisprudence: N/A

ECtHR jurisprudence: ECtHR, A.H. v the United Kingdom, app. no. 3868/68

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: N/A

ECtHR jurisprudence: Article 6 ECHRFey v. Austria, App. no. 14396/88, 24 February 1993Ferrantelli and Santangelo v. Italy, Application no. 19874/92, 7 August 1996, para. 58Švarc and Kavnik v. Slovenia, Application no. 75617/01, 8 February 2007, para. 39Pullar v. The United Kingdom, Application No. 22399/93, 10 June 1996, para. 32Mitrinovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Application No. 6899/12, 30 April 2015, para. 36Parlov-Tkalčić v. Croatia, 22 December 2009.Daktaras v. Lithuania, 10 October 2000.Findlay v. the United Kingdom, 25 February 1997.Bochan v. Ukraine, 3 May 2007.Puolitaival and Pirttiaho v. Finland, 23 November 2004.Borgers v. Belgium, 30 October 1991.

ECtHR jurisprudence: N/A

ECtHR jurisprudence: The European Convention of Human RightsCase Eminagaoglu vs. Turkey, ECHR, Application no. 76521/12, Final decision of 05/07/2021.