National case summaries

Asylum authority’s decision regarding the application of the safe third country principle quashed. The Court pointed out that the application of the STC principle is ‘absolutely unacceptable.’

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 State Secretary for Security and Justice rejects an application for temporary asylum residence permits by two Syrian minors based on the finding that Lebanon is a Safe Third Country for the applicants. The Court of The Hague rules that the State Secretary failed to sufficiently motivate his decision, as article 3.106a(1)(e) of the Aliens Decree was not taken into account. 

The Court found that the new DL 34/2008 in no way affects the legal regime established by the previous Law 27/2008, which secures the right to a legal procedure free of judicial costs in asylum claims. The Law 27/2008, altered by the new Law 26/2014, does not establish a cost exemption, which, if it did, would be then regulated by the DL 34/2008.

In the course of an asylum procedure, the statements of the asylum seeker have to be assessed integrally. This includes, inter alia, an analysis of (up-to-date) country reports. However, such analysis is not carried out in a sufficient manner where there are only superficial references to the country of origin information. Rather, it is required that the information contained is actually taken into consideration when taking the decision, applied to the specific circumstances of each case and compared to the information provided by the asylum seeker(s).

If this is not the case, there are significant deficiencies in the administrative inquiry and the facts relevant for the decision are not fully established. Therefore, the contested decisions are to be annulled and the matters are to be referred back to the competent authorities for new decisions to be issued since there is no sufficient basis for a decision of an administrative court. 

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 French National Asylum Court (CNDA) must do a complete assessment of facts and circumstances in deciding whether an applicant should be granted refugee status, or failing that, subsidiary protection. In doing so, it must take into account all the documentation provided by the Applicant in support of the application. In this case, the Applicant’s medical evidence documentation and the evidence relating to the potential risks she is likely to face if she returns to her country (fear of persecution due to imputed political opinions) should have been taken into account.

The CNDA did not consider that evidence and did not include it in its decision.

The Spanish Supreme Court’s Administrative Chamber decides on the appeal of the applicant, whose application for international protection has been rejected. The Court solves the case reasoning that the situation in the country of origin has  improved from the moment the applicant lodged the application, and in addition, no sufficient proof of the said persecution was presented.

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. 

A Judge when hearing applications for interim measures may issue an injunction against the administration on the basis of Article L. 521 of the Code of Administrative Justice when the administration’s behaviour reveals a manifest disregard of any of the requirements within the right of asylum and such an action results in serious consequences for the asylum applicant, considering in particular his age, health status and family situation.

There had been a gap of more than one month between the twenty-four hour reconsideration order made by the Judge hearing applications for interim measures, and the offer of material reception conditions made by the French Office for Immigration and Integration. This was notwithstanding the fact that at the time of the injunction, the applicant was already in a situation of extreme vulnerability (with no financial resources and five dependent children). This therefore constituted a violation of the requirements within the right of asylum which was likely to have serious consequences for the asylum applicant.