Case summaries

Complaint under Article 3 ECHR concerning the conditions of detention of a Turkish national in the Czech Bělá-Jezová detention centre declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. Failure to conduct an independent, thorough and victim-accessible investigation into allegations of police ill-treatment at Prague Airport amounts to a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 3 ECHR. Alleged ill-treatment by police officers does not amount to a violation of the substantive aspect of Article 3 ECHR, as the ECtHR cannot establish beyond reasonable doubt that the force used, including pepper spray, was excessive.

The Court found that there was a breach of Article 6(1) and (3)(d) of the Convention. The Court clarified that for a waiver of one’s rights to be compatible with the Convention, it must be shown that the applicant could reasonably have foreseen the consequences of his conduct. They further asserted that while the acceptance of pre-trial statements as evidence for a conviction is not a breach of Articles 6 (1) and 3(d), the absence of good reason for their use results in a breach of the Articles 6(1) and 3(d).

Given that the Secretary of State used the same materials in the first and in the review decisions, the High Court found that the Secretary of State did not comply with the standard of review in re-evaluating the case at hand.

In the case of an Afghan Shia Hazara applicant, the Belgian Council for Alien Litigation considered that the request for international protection was based on several sources of fear, which must be analysed in combination with each other, forming a cluster of concordant evidence.

The Council granted the applicant refugee status. 

This appeal considered what the correct approach is to the assessment of medical evidence in asylum claims alleging torture. Hence, it was declared that decision-makers can receive assistance from medical experts who are able to offer an opinion about the injury inflicted. The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal and remitted KV’s appeal against the refusal of asylum to the Upper Tribunal for fresh determination.  

When deciding upon an asylum applicant’s age, authorities should assess the evidence in a holistic way, and not rely solely on medical examinations of the applicant. If, in the absence of sufficient evidence, authorities conclude that the applicant is an adult, they need to justify their decision by reference to the grounds for its conclusion.

The Council of State concludes that the Legislative Decree 113/2018 (also referred to as ‘Salvini Decree’) that reorganises the Italian reception facilities for asylum seekers does not affect the principle of mutual trust between EU member states underpinning the Dublin Regulation. The expected limits on access to adequate reception centres, specifically for vulnerable persons, does not amount to systemic flaws in the sense of Article 3 of the Dublin Regulation. 

The Appellant and the appellant’s  children were applying for leave to remain in Sweden due to affiliation with their husband and father respectively who had been granted a permanent right of residency in Sweden as a refugee - despite them not being able to prove their identities. Due to the appellant’s lack of relevant documentation for her and the children,  the court had to consider the circumstances in which a  person can be granted alleviation of evidentiary burden in terms of proving their identity.

The Migration Court of Appeal granted the appeal and held that the appellant and the children would be granted an alleviation of evidentiary burden. It further referred the case back to the Swedish Migration Agency who would have to complete a DNA-test aimed at establishing the kinship of the family and subsequently try the case again. 

Effective access to justice relies on an individual having a voice in the proceedings concerning him or her. Solely focusing on the credibility of the appellant’s account and not having regard to objective evidence testifying to the appellant’s vulnerability or the risk to the appellant of return to Afghanistan has led to the proceedings being neither fair nor just. A material error of law has therefore been committed.