Case summaries

According to the Supreme Court, the Defendant failed to provide the Plaintiff with the basic procedural guarantees that are guaranteed to an applicant for international protection in the safe third country procedure as stipulated by the International Protection Act (ZMZ), as well as the Procedures Directive. Neither the reasoning in the contested act nor any other data in the case files show that the Plaintiff was given the opportunity to argue that the Republic of Croatia is not a safe third country for him before the decision to reject his application was issued.

Whenthe Defendant handed over the Plaintiff to the Republic of Croatia without waiting for the decision as regards the Plaintiff's appeal and application for an interim injunction, the Defendant violated the Plaintiff's constitutional right to effective judicial protection and legal remedy as stipulated in articles 23 and 25 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia.

This case examined the compatibility of the Dublin II Regulation with the European Convention on Human Rights regarding transfers to Greece under the Dublin II Regulation. The Court found that there was a violation of Article 3 ECHR by the Greece Government because of the applicant’s conditions of detention, violation of Article 3 ECHR by Greece concerning the applicant’s living conditions in Greece, violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3 ECHR against Greece because of the deficiencies in the asylum procedure followed in the applicant’s case and the risk of his expulsion to Afghanistan without any serious examination of the merits of his asylum application and without any access to an effective remedy. The Court also found in relation to Belgium that there was a violation of Article 3 by sending the applicant back to Greece and exposing him to risks linked to the deficiencies in the asylum procedure in that State, also held against Belgium a violation of Article 3 for sending him to Greece and exposing him to detention and living conditions there that were in breach of that ECHR article. The Court also found a violation of Article 13 ECHR taking in conjunction with Article 3 ECHR against Belgium.

The CALL ruled that, if the Office of the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (CGRS) rejects an asylum request because “the applicant has a right of residence in a safe third country,” this should not be seen as an application of the concept of “safe third country” as contained in Art 26 and 27 of the Asylum Procedures Directive.

In this case the court considered the risk to a refugee of indirect refoulement from a third country. 

The Migration Board accepted the applicant and her children were in need of international protection as refugees in relation to Senegal but claimed that they could obtain protection in Nigeria (considered a safe third country). The Migration Court upheld the applicant’s appeal stating that once a case has been examined in substance in relation to a country of origin and protection needs ascertained it is not possible subsequently to refuse protection by referring to a safe third country. Cases concerning safe third countries must be dismissed in accordance with Art 25.2(c) of the Asylum Procedures Directive which is transposed into Swedish law by the Aliens Act (2005:716) Chapter 5 Section 1 (b).

The CALL ruled that it is an applicant’s obligation to give as complete a picture as possible of their profile and past, including the countries and places of previous residence, in order to allow an assessment of the need for subsidiary protection. In the case of a stay/residence of many years outside his/her country of origin, it cannot be ruled out that the applicant has citizenship in a third country and that protection in Belgium is not needed.

The Court considered whether an application for international protection by an applicant of Russian nationality based on experiences of persecution in Lithuania (country of asylum) could be dismissed based on the reasoning that Lithuania is deemed to be a safe country of asylum. The Administrative Court held that the question of whether the applicants are in need of international protection based on the treatment they have received in their country of asylum, Lithuania, could not be examined in an asylum procedure in Lithuania.

UK domestic legislation that deemed that EU member states were safe third countries for the purposes of removal under the Dublin Regulation was not, as a matter of course, incompatible with Article 3 ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998. However, if the applicant could show that his or her rights under Article 3 ECHR would be breached by his or her removal to Greece, a declaration of incompatibility between the legislation and the Human Rights Act would be made, although the Court would be prevented from finding that the removal would breach the applicant’s rights.  However, the evidence combined with the ECtHR’s ruling in KRS v. UK was not sufficient to indicate that there was such a risk and, in any event, the applicant could seek the protection of the ECtHR in Greece.