National case summaries

A span of more than three-years between the filing of the appeal against the expulsion order and the original scheduling of the initial oral hearing of such appeal violated a plaintiff’s right to a trial without undue delays, in accordance with the criteria identified by the Spanish Constitutional Court in its settled case-law for determining whether a procedural delay is undue. These criteria consider, among others, the complexity of the case, the average duration of similar proceedings and the nature of the plaintiff’s interest at stake. 

The procedural guarantee in Art. 4 of the Dublin Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 is mandatory. The guarantee concerns the asylum seekers right to information when they present an application for international protection.

This safeguard is not respected solely because the applicant has undergone a personal interview, he needs to be given the “Common Leaflet”. This aims at guaranteeing that the information has been delivered in a proper way and in a clear and objective manner.

Upon preliminary examination, it cannot be excluded that a decision of an administrative court, limited to making a Dublin transfer conditional upon the assurance of the competent authorities in the country of destination that accommodation will be provided for the family in question, violates the right to an effective remedy under Art. 19(4)(1) of the Basic Law.

Since the removal might lead to severe disadvantages for the applicants which cannot easily be compensated for and which outweigh the consequences of a preliminarily prolonged presence of the persons concerned, the removal has to be suspended until the Federal Constitutional Court has reached its final decision. 

The presumption that Italy remains in compliance with its EU and International Law obligations related to the reception and integration of asylum seekers and Beneficiaries of International Protection has not been rebutted. Asylum seekers and BIPs suffering from severe psychological trauma can be returned to Italy with no real risk of breaching article 3 ECHR, or 4 CFREU, since the Country's reception capacities have not been exceeded, while effective medical treatment is available under the same terms as to Italian nationals.

According to the jurisprudence of the Supreme Administrative Court an oral hearing can only be waived if the complaint does not claim any facts relevant to the assessment which are in contradiction or go beyond the result of the administrative investigation procedures.

On the contrary, it constitutes a substantiated denial of the consideration of evidence by the relevant authority if a complaint questions the credibility of different sources which formed the basis of such consideration. The lack of an oral proceeding in such cases leads to a violation of the obligation to hold a trial.

With regards to a possible exclusion from asylum its severe consequences for the individual do not only require that the exclusion clauses of the 1951 Refugee Convention are interpreted narrowly but also that the facts are sufficiently established in order to determine which conduct the exclusion is based on and to weigh the reprehensibility of the offense against the need of protection of the applicant.

Considerations of the competent authority, which are limited to the assumption that the individual in question has participated in hostilities and has caused the death of opposing soldiers and civilians without further clarifying when,  on which occasion and under which circumstances such participation has taken place, do not meet the requirements for determining whether the criteria for exclusion are fulfilled.  

The legislative prohibition on the right to work for those seeking international protection, for a period of over 7 years, does not breach the right to earn a livelihood under the Constitution, nor does it violate rights codified in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union or the right to private life under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Discrepancies within evidence brought before the decision maker does not eschew the duty upon said decision maker to investigate the authenticity of the document. A person’s age is to be taken into account when evaluating evidential inconsistencies.

When relying on internal relocation a thorough assessment of all available evidence must be undertaken, including personal circumstances pertaining to the applicant. 

The French National Asylum Court (the “CNDA”)  must assess whether or not the applicant should be granted refugee status or, failing that, subsidiary protection,taking into account all the factual on the basis of the circumstances which are known to the CNDA when it rules. In order to assess the accuracy of the facts reported by an applicant, the CNDA must take into account all evidence presented by an applicant in support of his application. In particular, when an applicant produces circumstantial evidence relating to the alleged risks that he is likely to face if he returns to his country of origin, the CNDA must – after assessing the credibility of such evidence and analysing it in light of the reported facts – assess the potential risks  which the facts reveal and, as the case may be, indicate the elements that led the CNDA to consider these risks to be not sufficiently serious. 

In case a further extension of the detention order inside an Identification and Expulsion Centre is requested by the Police Commissioner, the procedural right to be heard should be granted to the applicant. If the applicant raises an objection to the violation of his right to be heard, the requested authority shall inform of the grounds for refusing to acceede to the applicant’s argumentation. Otherwise the detention order is to be considered invalid.

The physical border around the enclave of Melilla is conformed by two fences and the intermediate zone created between them. The Spanish military police (Guardia Civil) considers that until a migrant has not overcome the second fence he or she has not entered into Spanish territory and therefore, Spanish law, including the Organic Act 4/2000 on the Rights and Liberties of Foreigners in Spain and their Social Integration (“Aliens Act”), does not apply to a migrant apprehended in the intermediate zone.

The Court ruled that, although this interpretation may violate international law, since there is no clear definition under Spanish law of where the border is located, the direct refusal of migrants who have reached the intermediate zone, does not constitute an administrative prevarication offence.