Case summaries

Article 8(3)(e) of the recast Reception Conditions Directive fulfils the requirements of proportionality by virtue of the strictly circumscribed framework regulating its use. In light of Article 52(3) of the Charter, Article 8(3)(e) therefore complies with Article 5(1)(f) of the ECHR.

The Supreme Administrative Court attempted to answer the question whether the objective criteria for identification of the “existing risk of absconding” in order to apply Article 28(2) of Dublin III Regulation have to be set out in an act of parliament, or whether the wider interpretation of the phrase “defined in law” contained in Article 2(n) of Dublin III Regulation should be adopted. The court decided to refer a preliminary question to the CJEU.  

Restriction of movement due to the lack of official identification papers can occur only when the Applicant raises sufficient doubt as regards the credibility of his declared identity, at which the actual circumstances of the case at hand need to be taken into account.

The restriction of movement due to the presence of the Applicant’s fingerprints in the EURODAC base is permissible only if the actual circumstances of the case at hand indicate that the Applicant might flee.

The basis for  a person’s detention under  5(1)(f) of the Convention  is legally untenable when there is a lack  of  a  realistic  prospect  of  the applicant’s expulsion  and  the domestic authorities fail to conduct the expulsion proceedings with due diligence.

The case concerns access to a remedy with suspensive effect by an asylum seeker, who claimed asylum at the French border, against a potential removal from France to a country where there is real reason to believe he would face the risk of being subjected to ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR.