Case summaries

It is necessary to make a proportionality assessment with consideration of both the gravity of the crime committed by the applicant and the interests of society, and the applicant’s individual rights, particularly his right to private and family life under Article 8.

The Federal Administrative Court failed to fully assess the impact that the measure of removal would have on the applicant. The evolution of the applicant's conduct since the occurrence of the crime, the applicant’s deteriorating medical condition, and his social, cultural and family ties in the host country were not sufficiently examined in the decision. The failure to assess the proportionality of the removal order and amounted to a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

The restriction of the right to reside in a country may entail a violation of Article 8 ECHR, when creating disproportionate effects on the individuals’ private life. States should provide effective and accessible means to protect the right to respect for private and family life.  

If the applicant comes from a “safe” country, they must be able to prove that there is no protection as understood in the 1951 Geneva Convention, otherwise his application will be rejected. 

Every country has the right to control the entry and residence of aliens in its territory. Withdrawal of subsidiary protection from individuals convicted of serious crimes and subsequent expulsion does not violate their right to family life under Article 8, when there are alternative means of communication, non-severed cultural ties with the motherland and a reasonable prospect of return after the entry ban expiry.

Regarding the protection of the right to family life in asylum procedures, same-sex partnerships are in a comparable situation with heterosexual relationships. A distinction between the applicants for international protection based on sexual orientation is not in compliance with the Constitution. Article 16b(1) of IPA, which does not consider persons of a same-sex living in established partnership as family members, is inconsistent with the right to non-discriminatory treatment in the exercise of the right to family life.

An applicant from Kosovo claimed persecution due to his homosexuality. His application was rejected. The Administrative Court dismissed the action, but the Supreme court annulled the judgement and returned the case to the new procedure. An act of persecution does not depend on the applicant reporting persecution (in this case rape) to the police of their country of origin. 

A subsequent application is not admissible unless the interested party presents new facts or elements relating to his personnel situation or to the situation in his country of origin, out of which he could not have had knowledge of previously, and likely, if they have probative value, to modify the appreciation of the legitimacy or the credibility of the application of the interested party.

The director general of OFPRA was right to find that the elements that the applicants presented before him did not significantly increase the probability that they would meet the qualifying conditions to claim protection and that their subsequent applications were inadmissible, without having undertaken a hearing before making the decision on inadmissibility.

The criteria for detention under Article 28(2) of Dublin III Regulation must be assessed against the length and conditions of detention and must be precisely evaluated with regard to the impact on a child. Failure to do so renders the decision to detain unlawful. 

Hungary’s practice of not suspending its deportation procedures for second time asylum applicants amounts to a serious and unlawful interference with an applicant’s constitutionally guaranteed right to apply for refugee status.

In this case there was a serious risk that the Applicants’ asylum claims, which in principle should have been readmitted in Hungary in accordance with the Dublin II Regulation, would not be dealt with by the Hungarian authorities in accordance with all the guarantees required by the respect for the right to asylum. The French authorities therefore needed to grant them a temporary right of residence for asylum-related reasons.