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: M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, App. no. 30696/09, 21 January 2011, para. 293Saadi v. Italy, Application No. 37201/06, 28 February 2008, para. 140J.K. v. and Others v. Sweden, Application No. 59166/12, 23 August 2016, paras. 83, 87, 90-92, 140F.G. v. Sweden, Application No. 43611/11, 23 March 2016, paras. 156M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece, Application No. 30696/09, 21 January 2011Tarakhel v. Switzerland, Application No. 29217/12, 4 November 2014Camara v. Belgium, Application No. 49255/22Msallem and 147 Others v. Belgium, Application No. 48987/22Al-Shuja and Others v. Belgium, Application No. 52208/22Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary, Application No. 47287/15, 21. November 2019, paras. 131, 133-134, 136-139, 141, 146-147, 149-150, 154, 162-163

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: 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: N/A

ECtHR jurisprudence: M.S.S. vs Belgium and Greece, Application no. 30696/09 (Decision of 21st January 2011) and Tarakhel vs Switzerland, Application no. 29217/12 (Decision of 14th November 2014); Salah Sheekh v. The Netherlands, Application No. 1948/04 (Decision of 11 January 2007); NA v. United Kingdom, Application No. 25904/07 (Decision of 17 July 2008); Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey, Application No. 30471/08 (Decision of 22 September 2009); Fg v. Sweden, Application No. 43611/11 (Decision of 23 March 2016)

ECtHR jurisprudence: MSS vs Belgium, CE:ECHR:2011:0121JUD003069609.

ECtHR jurisprudence: A and others v. North Macedonia, App. no. 55798/16, 5.4.2022, para. 112, 114, 116, 121-123; A. B. and others v. Poland, App. no. 42907/17, 30.6.2022, para. 52; A. I. and others v. Poland, App. no. 39028/17, 30.6.2022, para. 41-42, 55; N.D. and N.T. v Spain, App. no. 8675/15 in 8697/15, para. 180, 201; Shahzad v. Hungary, App. no. 12625/17, 8.6.2021, para. 59, 62, 65; M. H. and others v. Croatia, App. no. 15670/18, 43115/18, 18.11. 2021, para. 295-304)Khlaifia and Others v. Italy, app. no. 16483/12, 15 December 2016Tarakhel v. Switzerland, App. no. 29217/12, 4.11.2014Soering v. the United Kingdom, para. 88, J.K. and others v. Sweden, para. 80, 90; F.G. v Sweden, para. 156Interim orders under Article 39 ECHR in: Camara v. Belgium (App. no. 49255/22), Msallem and 147 Others v. Belgium (App. no. 48987/22), Al-Shuja and Others v. Belgium (App. no. 52208/22)L.M. and others v. Russia, para. 100;M. A. and Others v. Lithuania, app. no.  59793/17, 11 December 2018M. S. S. v Belgium and Greece, app. no. 30696/09, 21 January 2011Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary, app. no. 47287/15, 21 November 2019Gebremedhin v France, app. no. 25389/05, 26.4.2007, §66Abdolkhani and Karimnia v Turkey, app. nos. 30471/08, 22.9.2009, §108.