Case summaries
The Human Rights Committee ruled that their treatment of asylum seekers detained on Christmas Island and later transferred to Nauru under Australia's offshore processing policy violated the ICCPR, due to arbitrary detention and cruel treatment. Australia was ordered to compensate the victims and reform its migration policies.
Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/83 requires the determining authority, under its duty of cooperation, to obtain up-to-date country of origin information and, where relevant, a medico-legal report on the applicant’s mental health; a breach of that duty does not automatically lead to annulment unless it may have affected the outcome.
Under Directive 2005/85, delays in the asylum procedure cannot be justified by legislative changes and, on their own, do not warrant setting aside a decision absent an impact on the outcome.
Article 4(5)(e) of Directive 2004/83 means that a false statement later explained and withdrawn at the first opportunity does not, by itself, undermine the applicant’s general credibility.
The application of the concept of ‘deemed notice’, used when the person's whereabouts or address are not known in a case on deprivation of citizenship, was found to be ultra vires since reasonable steps to reach the individual were not taken.
The right to be heard (Art. 103 par. 1 German Basic Law - Grundgesetz) guarantees every party access to all documents relevant for the decision, which includes status reports on the applicant’s country of origin in asylum cases.
The right to be heard also guarantees that the court takes all information and evidence into account presented by the applicant. § 74 Abs. 2 Asylum Act (Asylgesetz) limits the time period in which an applicant may present information and evidence to one month, however this only refers to information and evidence concerning the applicant’s personal experiences (individueller Lebensbereich). Information and evidence i.e. on the overall situation in the country may also be presented after a month.
The continuation of detention beyond the period of 90 days, while the appeal against the decision rejecting the asylum application was still pending, is a disproportionate measure of deprivation of liberty for the applicant. Alternative measures must be considered.
The case concerned the application of a take back request under the the Dublin III Regulation where an asylum applicant has lodged multiple asylum applications in two different Member States and is the subject of a European Arrest Warrant.
Following the careful examination of International, European and domestic law, the Court concluded that the grant of refugee status supersedes any order made by a Family Court (regarding the return of the child to Pakistan), because it is the Secretary of State for the Home Department that is the entrusted public authority to deal with asylum matters. However, were the Family Court to discover new facts, the relevant public authority would be responsible, in principle, under the tenets of UK Administrative Law to review their decision.
The application of S.C. and her minor children Z.C. and F.C. related to the cassation of an Appeal Court judgement regarding compensation for the harm they suffered as a result of an indisputably unjust decision to place the Applicants in a Guarded Detention Centre for Foreigners. The Supreme Court reversed the challenged judgement and passed the case to the Appeal Court for re-consideration.
This case concerned a judicial review challenge of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision where the Court held that there must be a thorough analysis as to the forward looking fear of a person being returned to Pakistan on account of their religion.