Case summaries

  • My search
  • Country of applicant
    1
Reset
CJEU - Case C-82/16 K.A. and Others, 8 May 2018
Country of applicant: Albania, Armenia, Guinea, Kenya, Nigeria, Russia, Uganda

Requests for family reunification must be examined even if the third-country national, who is a family member of an EU citizen who has never exercised his right of freedom of movement, is subject to an entry ban. Whether there is a relationship of dependency between the third-country national and the EU citizen and whether public policy grounds justify the entry ban must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Date of decision: 08-05-2018
ECtHR Thuo v. Cyprus (no. 3869/07)
Country of applicant: Kenya

Lack of prompt investigation of ill-treatment complaints may amount to a procedural violation of Article 3 ECHR. Detention conditions should follow certain standards and individuals should be kept in suitable establishments with enough allocated space.

Date of decision: 04-04-2017
Sweden – Migration Court of Appeal, 7 September 2011, UM 10404-10
Country of applicant: Kenya, Somalia

If an applicant has serious criticism of a language test conducted to determine their country of origin, the Migration Board must investigate the grounds before making a decision, or at least respond to the applicant's criticism so that the submission can be completed.

If the Migration Court considers a language test report to be unreliable or inadequate, it can decide to request a new language analysis or return the case to the Migration Board for further investigation, but cannot choose to ignore the analysis entirely.

Date of decision: 07-09-2011
Hungary – Metropolitan Court, 16 January 2009, L.M.N. v. Office of Immigration and Nationality, 17.K.32.826/2007/15
Country of applicant: Kenya

The Kenyan applicant was a potential victim of female genital mutilation (FGM) and she faced forced marriage upon return. The Court stated that even if there was a risk of persecution in case of a return to the country of origin, the applicant could reasonably be expected to relocate internally as it was feasible in the circumstances.

Date of decision: 16-01-2009