Case summaries

The presumption of minority does not apply when bone testing shows the applicant’s majority and when a doctor does not express doubts on the results. The tribunal did not request further tests. 

The Federal Administrative Court rules, that the significant risk of absconding for ‘Dublin-detention’ orders must always be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The sole existence of a ground for detention as set out in Art. 76a(2) AuG does not automatically indicate a significant risk absconding. Such an order is unlawful and must be rescinded. The Court ‘warns’ the SEM that the current practices are very concerning and require adaptation.

The presence of laws criminalising homosexuality does not amount to persecution within the meaning of article 9, Directive 2011/95/EU when there is no real risk for gay men to be prosecuted on the basis of these laws. A gay man in Algeria may reasonably be expected to relocate within the country in order to avoid persecution from his family members, and to conceal his sexual identity so as to conform to societal pressures falling short of acts of persecution.

Article 1F of the Refugee Convention relates to the application of a definition and not whether an individual seeking asylum should obtain protection or not. Therefore, and with regards to Article 1F(b), any post-offence conduct does not serve to mitigate the seriousness of an alleged non-political offence. No doctrine of expiation is to, thus, be applied to Article 1F(b).

The term serious used in Article 1F(b) denotes especially grave offending and requires no further qualification by the term “particularly." 

The obligations imposed by Article 3 ECHR do not prevent contracting states from taking into account the possibility of relocation. Where appropriate, contracting states can expect an applicant to relocate to another part of his country of origin in order to avoid persecution.

Detention pending Dublin transfer can only be ordered on the basis of Article 28 Dublin-III-Regulation, which contains autonomous provisions on the detention of foreigner. Additional criteria laid down by national laws are required in order to specify the condition of "risk of absconding". A deportation detention order that does not even refer to Art. 28 Dublin-III-Regulation is unlawful.

The case concerns an appeal of an Algerian woman to the Council of State, against a decision taken on the 17 June 2013 by the National Court of Asylum (CNDA), who rejected the appeal against the Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Person’s (OFPRA) decision concerning the applicant’s application for asylum.  

The Council of State annulled the decision of the CNDA, stating that before finding the existence of a reasonable possibility for the applicant to find internal protection in another region of her country of origin, the Court should have looked into which part of the Algerian territory the applicant could, in all safety, access, settle, exist and lead a normal family life without the fear of being persecuted or being exposed to the risk of serious violence from her ex-husband.

The right to be represented by a lawyer in the context of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 will only apply when an appeal to a return decision has been lodged and free legal assistance will be subject to national domestic legislation. 

This case concerned the meaning of “serious” in Article 1F(b): the Court had to decide whether the crime of participating in a criminal association with a terrorist aim was sufficiently serious enough to exclude the applicant from international protection.

Applicant M was a citizen of Algeria who applied for a residence document in Finland on grounds of family relations. He/she was married to a sponsor called L and they had a joint minor child. L had another child from a previous marriage. A prerequisite for M to be granted a residence document was for him/her to have sufficient income, which he/she did not have. There was also the question of whether denying a residence document breached the Union citizen’s rights under Article 20 of the TFEU. The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that denying a residence document did not breach the Unio citizen’s rights. In addition, there were no factors which would support deviating from the means of support prerequisite as stated in the law.