Case summaries
1. Do the ‘international obligations’, referred to in Article 25(1)(a) of Regulation No 810/2009 1 of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas cover all the rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, including, in particular, those guaranteed by Articles 4 and 18, and do they also cover obligations which bind the Member States, in the light of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 33 of the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees?
A. In view of the answer given to the first question, must Article 25(1)(a) of Regulation No 810/2009 of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas be interpreted as meaning that, subject to its discretion with regard to the circumstances of the case, a Member State to which an application for a visa with limited territorial validity has been made is required to issue the visa applied for, where a risk of infringement of Article 4 and/or Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union or another international obligation by which it is bound is detected?
B. Does the existence of links between the applicant and the Member State to which the visa application has been made (for example, family connections, host families, guarantors and sponsors) affect the answer to that question?
The applicant was detained in the airport of Turkey when entering the country due to the fact he previously stayed in the country with an irregular immigration status.
During his detention he was subjected to overcrowding, unhygienic conditions and lack of proper food and medical attention, a situation could amount to inhuman or degrading treatment.
This case dealt with the extent to which in the case of a child the prospect of discrimination could amount to a real risk of persecution sufficient to found a successful asylum claim in a situation where a comparably placed adult would not be at such a risk.
The Defendant faced two charges, that of a ‘prohibited immigrant’ and of illegally entering the Republic of Cyprus, whilst at the same time he had applied for asylum. With the aid of effective legal representation, he was found not guilty on both charges.
The Court of Appeal concluded that to send a refugee who has a residence permit in Italy and an asylum seeker back to the country would not violate Article 3 ECHR.
The court further constrained the decision in Tarakhel to families with minor children.
The ECtHR ruled that the Greek authorities had failed in their positive obligation under Article 8 ECHR to guarantee that the applicant’s asylum request is examined within a reasonable time in order to ensure that his situation of insecurity, which impinges upon several elements of his private life, is as short-lived as possible.
A Dublin Transfer to Italy should be prevented when the person concerned is a vulnerable person as per in Article 3 (2) Dublin III Regulation.
The Court quashed the decision of the Office of Immigration and Nationality (OIN) because it failed to carry out a proper establishment of facts as required by the Dublin III Regulation.
When deciding whether refugee status should be available , one must not only consider any pre-persecution but also post-flight circumstances. Judged on a forward looking basis of persecution of political enemies within Syrian territory, upon return to Syria there continues to be a danger of individual persecution including human rights violations by reason of belonging to a certain group.
The Administrative Chamber of the Spanish Supreme Court decides on the inadmissibility of the appeal an applicant for international protection submitted of a judgement that denied him the right of asylum and subsidiary protection.
The Supreme Court concludes there is no legal reasoning to admit the appeal, because what the National Court concluded was well-founded.