Case summaries

The Immigration Service had rejected applications for residence permits based on family ties, because the Applicants had not been heard in person. Conducting an oral hearing with the Applicants was not mandatory for establishing the requirements for family reunification. The refusal by the Immigration Service to conduct the hearing had in practice lead to the rejection of the applications for residence permits. The Administrative Court considered that the conduct of the authorities had caused undue harm to the Applicants.

This inadmissibility decision concerned the transfer of Mrs. Hussein and her children to Italy from the Netherlands under the Dublin II Regulation. The Court found the applicant’s complaints under Article 3 ECHR and Article 13 ECHR as manifestly unfounded within the meaning of Article 35(3)(a) of the Convention. The Court found that though there were shortcomings in Italy it did not disclose systemic failures to provide support for asylum seekers there. 

The ECtHR ruled that the detention of an Algerian national in a Bulgarian detention centre was in breach of Article 5(1) ECHR due to the length of the detention and the lack of diligence by the Bulgarian authorities when taking steps to carry out the applicant’s expulsion, and of Article 5(4) ECHR. Secondly the court considered whether the Bulgarian government had been in breach of Article 5 (4) due to the excessive delay until the applicant’s challenge against his detention was heard before a court. 

This case concerned the appropriate interpretation to be given to the determination of the Court of Justice in Case C-277/2012, M.M. v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in answer to the questions posed by the High Court of Ireland pursuant to Article 267 TFEU.

The Court of Justice answered in the negative the question posed that the duty to cooperate required the decision maker to supply the Applicant with a draft of any possible adverse decision for comment prior to its formal adoption.

However, the Court of Justice also considered the Irish system for protection decision making more broadly and concluded that it was unlawful not to allow for a further hearing of the Applicant in the course of examination of the subsidiary protection application – following the conclusion of a negative decision on an asylum claim.

The High Court held that the appropriate interpretation to be given to the judgment in this regard was that, in order for a hearing to be effective, it would at a minimum, involve a procedure whereby the Applicant was invited to comment on any adverse credibility findings made at the asylum stage; a completely fresh opportunity to revisit all matters bearing on the claim for subsidiary protection; and a completely fresh assessment of the Applicant's credibility in circumstances where the mere fact that the asylum decision maker had ruled adversely on this question would not in itself suffice or be directly relevant to this fresh credibility assessment.

The Court opined that the finding of the Court of Justice did not suggest that an oral hearing would be routinely required at subsidiary protection stage, but considered it unnecessary at that juncture to conclusively determine the issue.

The holding of two Somali nationals in a Maltese detention centre is declared not to be a violation of Article 3 of the Convention; the cumulative effect of the conditions of detention did not amount to inhuman treatment.  The Court accepted that the detention, although lengthy, fell within Article 5 (1) (f). However, the Court declares a violation of Article 5 (4) as the applicants did not have access to judicial review of the decision to detain them, hence they could not challenge the lawfulness of detention. 

The case concerns the removal of a Brazilian national residing in French Guiana (a French overseas département-région) and his inability to challenge the measure before its enforcement.

This case deals with whether an applicant, in a system where refugee status determination and subsidiary protection are examined separately, can require the administrative authorities in that State to supply them with the results of the assessment made in advance of a decision when it is proposed that such an application should be refused. The CJEU held that the obligation to cooperation under Article 4(1) of the Qualification Directive cannot be interpreted in that way but in such a separate system the fundamental rights of the Applicant must be respected and in particular the principle of the right to be heard.

Persecution at the hands of political authorities acting for political reasons and with a political objective although not arising from the actual or imputed opinions of the individual concerned.

Article L. 712(1) (b) of the CESEDA requires the asylum judge to examine whether the circumstances allow the risks referred to in this provision to be regarded as proven. The protection provided for in this Article is only granted where there is a real, rather than possible, risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in the event of a return to the Applicant’s country of origin. 

The detention of asylum applicants may undermine their ability to claim asylum and that an ‘effective remedy’ requires an appeal with suspensive effect against refoulement in order to prevent irreparable harm, sufficient time to prepare the appeal and effective legal assistance and interpretation.