Case summaries
Article 4 ECHR requires that victims of trafficking are promptly identified as soon as there is credible suspicion of trafficking-related circumstances, regardless of whether the victims were able to identify and mention their experience.
To the extent that is possible, potential victims of trafficking can only be prosecuted following an assessment of whether they have been trafficked. Prosecutorial service should be aware of protocols around trafficking cases.
The lack of an assessment of whether the applicants had been trafficked prevented them from obtaining evidence that were fundamentally related to their defence in violation of their right to a fair trial under Article 6. The domestic judicial procedure was also contrary to Article 6 insofar as the applicants’ subsequent claims regarding their trafficking were not adequately assessed.
The ECtHR ruled the conditions of the applicant’s detention, prior to her being deported from Cyprus, subjected her to hardship going beyond the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and thus amounted to degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention.
A member state cannot rely on the fact that there are no specialized detention facilities in a part of its territory to justify keeping non-citizens in prison pending their removal. The same rule applies even if the migration detainee has consented to being confined to prison.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is also applicable to proceedings to issue a return decision and requires a hearing. With regard to an Applicant who is not represented by anyone legally qualified, such an obligation also exists in cases in which an application for an oral hearing was not expressly lodged. This applies in particular when considering questions concerning private and family life in Austria.
It is the duty of the administrative body to deal reasonably with objections to intrusion into the private and family life of the applicant within international protection proceedings.
- Refugee status was recognised because of a risk of persecution in case of return to Vietnam due to “exposed” political activities in exile.
- Recognition as a refugee was not excluded by Section 28 (2) of the Asylum Procedure Act. Contrary to the case law of the Federal Administrative Court, political activities in exile do not constitute “circumstances which the applicant has created by his own decision” within the meaning of Art. 5.3 of the Qualification Directive , but fall under Art. 5.2. Therefore, Member States have no competence to regulate the meaning of such "activities" by applying Art 5.3. This is also demonstrated in the differentiation in Art. 4.3 (c) and (d). Art. 5 (2) of the Qualification Directive which essentially corresponds with the new Section 28 (1a) of the Asylum Procedure Act, although the term "activities" has not been adopted in the latter provision.
Refusal to perform compulsory basic military service cannot be considered as a reason for granting asylum, particularly if such a refusal is not connected with manifested political or religious beliefs.
The case concerned an application for asylum for humanitarian reasons under the provision of Art 14 of the Asylum Act. The Court held that integration and a long period of residence in the Czech Republic, including being born on the territory, are not as sufficient reasons to fulfil the conditions of humanitarian asylum.