Case summaries

The interest of an applicant to obtain a temporary stay from deportation to Italy for the time being predominates, if the applicant, in case of his return back to Italy, would be threatened with serious damage to his health due to inadequate accommodation opportunities there and because medical care would not be guaranteed due to a permanent overstretch of resources.

A transfer in accordance with the Dublin Regulation does not require the Swedish Migration Board to investigate ex officio whether there are deficiencies in the asylum system in Italy. The transfer does, however, breach the right to a family life, in accordance with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Interventions from third parties to proceedings initiated before the National Asylum Court may be admitted.

A person with refugee status in one European Union state who applies for refugee status in a second European Union state is presumed to have unfounded fears relating to lack of protection. However, that presumption may be rebutted by evidence to the contrary. 

The CGRS (Office of the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons) may not dispute the nationality of an asylum seeker without taking into account the official documents that he has filed.

1. The issue as to whether an asylum-seeker was already protected against political persecution in a third country is only relevant in terms of  the asylum application for recognition of refugee status in the context of the concept of the first country of asylum as defined in EU law in Article 29 of the Asylum Procedures Act (Articles 25 and 26 of the Asylum Procedures Directive).  

2. If the Federal Office has reached a decision on the asylum application in this case, the substantive question of the subsidiarity of refugee protection in the assessment of refugee status is no longer applicable.

The CALL confirmed that the need for protection should be assessed in relation to the country of nationality (or, for stateless persons, vis-à-vis the country of former habitual residence) and that this is not influenced by the fact that the applicant resided in a “safe third country” or in a “first country of asylum,” or has a “real residence alternative,” these concepts having no grounds in Belgian law. The CALL did however add that if the applicant has refugee or subsidiary protection status in another country, he/she has no direct interest in having that status also recognised in Belgium, except if he/she can demonstrate a fear of persecution or a real risk of serious harm in that other country. 

This case concerned a decision of the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner to refuse to process the asylum applications of two nationals of Azerbaijan, with refugee status in Poland. The applicants claimed they were being watched by Azeri agents in Poland and felt unsafe there. The Court held that the applicants would have had to show that the Polish authorities were unwilling or unable to provide protection. In circumstances where they had not even reported their fears to the Polish authorities, the applications were bound to fail. The Minister had no jurisdiction to grant them refugee status pursuant to the provisions of section 17 (4) of the Refugee Act, 1996.

The applicant lodged an appeal before the High National Court against the decision issued by the Ministry of Interior to refuse granting stateless status. At issue in the case was whether the reasons given by the Ministry were lawful: if the applicant had already received protection from Algeria and if he fell within the scope of the exclusion clause because of the protection already granted by organs of the UN other than UNHCR.

In a decision on whether the return of an unaccompanied minor to Hungary under the Dublin Regulation is unlawful in light of Art. 3 ECHR and therefore the sovereignty clause should be used, Art. 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union(CFRU – best interest of the child as a primary consideration for authorities) is significant.