Case summaries

Partly as a result of his detention, the foreigner's financial resources are limited. The obligation to pay €227.00 in court fees for the processing of an appeal therefore constitutes a major breach of the right to access to justice guaranteed under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, amongst other provisions. The appeal should therefore have been examined on its merits despite the court fees not being paid.

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.

In the opinion of the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic, the decision of the defendant was arbitrary only with regard to the statement that “in view of the fact that there is no legal entitlement to asylum in the territory of the Slovak Republic on humanitarian grounds and in the course of the procedure no facts were found which would have led the Migration Office to such a conclusion, it will not grant asylum on humanitarian grounds under Section 9 of the Asylum Act“, which could not be reviewed due to lack of grounds. 

With this judgment, the General Assembly of CALL is trying to bring its case law in line with the M.S.S. judgment of the ECtHR.

The CALL set the conditions under which an appeal for suspension against an enforceable decision (an order to leave the territory) has automatic suspensive effect.

After a prima facie examination (in extreme urgency), the CALL decided that the applicant in this casehas a reasonable ground of appeal on the basis of Article 3 of the ECHR, as he gave sufficient indications of the concrete problems he was experiencing in Poland. The CALL derived from this a duty of investigation on the part of the Aliens Office. This was sufficient for the CALL, furthermore, to provisionally suspend enforcement of an agreement with Poland to take back the applicant, pending the processing of an appeal for revocation.

This case examined the compatibility of the Dublin II Regulation with the European Convention on Human Rights regarding transfers to Greece under the Dublin II Regulation. The Court found that there was a violation of Article 3 ECHR by the Greece Government because of the applicant’s conditions of detention, violation of Article 3 ECHR by Greece concerning the applicant’s living conditions in Greece, violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3 ECHR against Greece because of the deficiencies in the asylum procedure followed in the applicant’s case and the risk of his expulsion to Afghanistan without any serious examination of the merits of his asylum application and without any access to an effective remedy. The Court also found in relation to Belgium that there was a violation of Article 3 by sending the applicant back to Greece and exposing him to risks linked to the deficiencies in the asylum procedure in that State, also held against Belgium a violation of Article 3 for sending him to Greece and exposing him to detention and living conditions there that were in breach of that ECHR article. The Court also found a violation of Article 13 ECHR taking in conjunction with Article 3 ECHR against Belgium.

This case concerned a decision of the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner to refuse to process the asylum applications of two nationals of Azerbaijan, with refugee status in Poland. The applicants claimed they were being watched by Azeri agents in Poland and felt unsafe there. The Court held that the applicants would have had to show that the Polish authorities were unwilling or unable to provide protection. In circumstances where they had not even reported their fears to the Polish authorities, the applications were bound to fail. The Minister had no jurisdiction to grant them refugee status pursuant to the provisions of section 17 (4) of the Refugee Act, 1996.

The applicants, a family of four from Iran, were deported back to Iran from Turkey after having been granted refugee status by the UNHCR. The applicants challenged the lawfulness of their detention, claimed that they were not offered an effective remedy prior to their deportation and that they were at risk of persecution upon their return to Iran. 

It does not follow from any of the provisions of the Asylum Act or the Administrative Procedure Code that the Respondent must deliver a decision to an asylum applicant in his or her mother tongue or a language that he or she understands.

Under Article 2 ECHR there can be no extradition of an individual if a serious risk of the death penalty is established. An applicant’s psychological suffering due to the fear of execution by authorities violates Article 3.

It is not open to a Contracting State to enter into an agreement with another State which conflicts with its obligations under the Convention.