Case summaries

This case concerns the interpretation of Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 when an unaccompanied child submits more than one asylum application in two Member States and does not have any family members present in the territories of the Member States. In such circumstances the CJEU held that the responsible Member State is the one in which the child is present after having lodged an asylum application there.

In family reunification cases it is only possible to use DNA testing to verify family ties in situations where serious doubts persist concerning kinship after other forms of evidence have been presented.

The case concerned Somali and Eritrean migrants travelling from Libya who had been intercepted at sea by the Italian authorities and sent back to Libya. Returning them to Libya without examining their case exposed them to a risk of ill-treatment and amounted to a collective expulsion.

When the asylum claim of an applicant has not been individually assessed, the National Court of Asylum has to cancel the asylum refusal decision and the asylum claim has to be reassessed by the OFPRA.

The Administrative Court considered the proposed removal of the applicant from the UK to Italy under the Dublin Regulation. In applying MSS v Belgium and Greece and KRS v UK to applications to resist removal under the Dublin Regulation on human rights grounds, a system which protects the rights of asylum seekers should be presumed in other EU member states. The evidence must reveal a systemic failure on a significant scale for the presumption to be rebutted.  Particular weight would be given to the public statements of UNHCR and other intergovernmental bodies with appropriate mandates.  Little or no weight would usually be given to expert reports in such cases.

Saudi Arabia is not considered a safe third country for non-Saudi nationals.

Pursuant to Article 30 (6) of Legislative Decree No. 286/1998, disputes concerning authorisations relating to family reunification should be excluded from the jurisdiction of administrative courts and should rather be dealt with by ordinary courts. According to judgment No. 1414/2010 of the Regional Administrative Court in Lazio, ordinary courts may be referred to not only in appeals against refusals to issue a family reunification authorisation, but also to pass autonomous judgments concerning entitlement to obtain authorisations or clearance for family reasons.

A decision terminating the procedure is unlawful and it is not in the function of providing access to the asylum procedures and the protection of the principle of non-refoulement, if the Asylum authority immediately and automatically as soon as the applicant failed to appear for the personal interview, even though he was regularly summoned and informed of the consequences if he does not appear, issued a decision to close the case, without firstly carrying out reasonable activities within the reception centre in order to establish why the applicant did not attend the interview.

In the event that a national legal norm is not in compliance with EU law, the court does not suspend the procedure for assessment of constitutionality of the disputed provision, but ignores the disputed legal provision and directly uses a clear and unconditional provision of secondary EU law with a direct effect. The obligation to ignore the national norm in such cases also applies to administrative authorities.

The scope of the Reception Conditions Directive can be limited in relation to asylum applicants that do not respect their obligation to  prove their identity in order to enable the national authorities to verify whether any prior applications had been made. In this case, the Reception Conditions Directive was set aside following noncompliance with Art 18(1) EURODAC Regulation, which requires all asylum applicants above the age of 14 to agree to have their fingerprints recorded.

The Court considered the correct approach to sur place claims, having regard to Article 4 and 5 of the Qualification Directive. A difference exists between sur place activies pursued by a political dissident against his or her own government in the country where he or she is seeking asylum which may expose him or her to a risk of ill treatment or persecution and activities that were pursued solely with the motive of creating such a risk.  However, the Directive should not be interpreted to prevent a claim based on opportunism. It requires an assessment of whether the authorities in the country of origin are likely to observe and record the claimant’s activities and recognises that those authorities may realise or be persuaded that the activity was insincere and, the fear of consequent ill-treatment not well-founded. But it does not prevent a claim made on such a basis.