Case summaries

The Committee found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention against Torture (non-refoulement), considering that the State party failed to address the individual circumstances and risk profile of the complainant, namely the fact that she was a woman of conscription age and a “failed asylum seeker”, when ascertaining whether her return to Eritrea would pose a risk of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment. Also, it observed that the State disregarded her asylum claim relying on the report’s findings, which did not meet the impartiality required as evidentiary proof.

The State Secretariat of Migration (SSM) is obliged to assess the proportionality of a cessation measure in a case of a granted temporary residence in Switzerland. It was concluded that the cessation of temporary residence is not proportionate, when the applicant showed considerable efforts to integrate in the host community such as learning languages and practicing several internships to obtain a job in that country. His return would hamper all those integration efforts.

Article 11(2) of Directive 2003/86 must be interpreted as precluding the rejection of an application for family reunification lodged by a sponsor in favour of a minor of whom she is allegedly the guardian solely on the grounds of lack of official documentary evidence of the family relationship and the sponsor’s inability to explain the absence of such evidence being deemed implausible on the basis of general country of origin information.

Authorities have to take into consideration the specific circumstances of the sponsor and the minor, including the difficulties they faced during and after their flight from their country.

When deciding upon an asylum applicant’s age, authorities should assess the evidence in a holistic way, and not rely solely on medical examinations of the applicant. If, in the absence of sufficient evidence, authorities conclude that the applicant is an adult, they need to justify their decision by reference to the grounds for its conclusion.

The Council of State concludes that the Legislative Decree 113/2018 (also referred to as ‘Salvini Decree’) that reorganises the Italian reception facilities for asylum seekers does not affect the principle of mutual trust between EU member states underpinning the Dublin Regulation. The expected limits on access to adequate reception centres, specifically for vulnerable persons, does not amount to systemic flaws in the sense of Article 3 of the Dublin Regulation. 

The Council of State concludes that the Legislative Decree 113/2018 (also referred to as ‘Salvini Decree’) that reorganises the Italian reception facilities for asylum seekers does not affect the principle of mutual trust between EU member states underpinning the Dublin Regulation. The expected limits on access to adequate reception centres, specifically for vulnerable persons, does not amount to systemic flaws in the sense of Article 3 of the Dublin Regulation. 

The CJEU ruled on the time limit for Member States to respond to requests for re-examination of "take charge" or "take back" requests and clarified that Member States should endeavour to respond within two weeks; if they do not the requesting Member State retains responsibility. 

The Council of State decided on the date from which the 6-month time limit provided by Article 29§1 of the Dublin regulation 604/2013 begins running or when it starts running again in case of an interruption. At the expiry of this deadline, the responsibility of the examination of an asylum claim falls back to the Member State which requested another Member State that charge be taken or to take back, as it did not proceed to the applicant’s transfer.  The Council specified that this deadline starts running once the other Member State has accepted the request that charge be taken or to take back. In case of an appeal, the delay is interrupted and begins running again at the date of the final judgment deciding on this appeal. Following appeals do not interrupt this newly-established delay.

The judgment deals with the admissibility of the execution of an expulsion order of an Eritrean who illegally left the country. Despite the assumption that the entry into the national service in the country of origin constitutes forced labour within the meaning of Art. 4 para. 2 ECHR, enforcement is permissible since there was no flagrant violation of Art. 4 para. 2 ECHR.

§ 104 para. 13 S. 1 of AufenthG (Residence Law) impedes the claim of a person with subsidiary protection for the assessment of a case of non-refoulment referring to the situation in the state of origin according to § 60 Abs. 5 AufenthG and Art. 3 ECHR in order to enable family reunion due to the lack of a defensible interest.