Case summaries

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.

This case concerned the right to apply for asylum and seek an effective judicial remedy where the applicants had not reached Spanish territory (by land or sea). The Spanish Commission for Refugee Assistance (CEAR) lodged an appeal before the Supreme Court against a decision of the High National Court. CEAR alleged that the applicants’ right to seek asylum and the right to effective judicial protection had been violated. The Supreme Court held that the applicants could not exercise those rights as they had not arrived on Spanish territory.

When determining whether the maximum period for detention pending removal under the Returns Directive is exceeded, the following periods must be included: (1) periods of detention prior to the application of the Directive by the Member State; (2) periods of detention pending an asylum claim where no decision is made to transfer the individual from ‘detention pending removal’ to ‘detention pending asylum claim’; (3) periods of detention pending judicial review of the deportation. In addition, the ‘reasonableness’ of the prospects of removal must take account of whether removal can take place within the maximum period of detention time, and once the maximum period is exceeded, the individual can no longer be detained for the purpose of removal.

The applicants, who had been recognised as refugees by UNHCR, faced risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 upon Turkey’s proposed  deportation of them to either Iran or Iraq. They had no effective opportunity to make an asylum claim or challenge their deportation. Further their detention had no legal justification and they had been unable to challenge its lawfulness. The Court found violations of Article 3, 13, 5(1), 5(2) and 5(4). 

In an application for subsidiary protection made after a failed refugee claim (and after a Deportation Order has been made), the Minister has a discretion to consider the application, which he can exercise if there is new information or altered circumstances. The absence of such means that that the Minister is entitled to refuse to entertain the application; there is no automatic right to make such an application at that late stage of proceedings.

In view of the fact that the Regional Court failed to address the objections made by the Appellant in his appeal, unlawfully considered the  Appellant to be making an application for recognition as a refugee sur place, failed to deal with the evidence submitted by the Appellant in conjunction with his appeal (that his case was different from an application for recognition as a refugee “sur place”), and since it was beyond doubt that the Court acted on outside of  the subject matter of the appeal, it denied the Appellant the opportunity to have his objections heard before the Court.

This case examines the differences between the procedure for examining a claim for asylum and the procedure for examining the application of exclusion clauses.

The case concerns access to a remedy with suspensive effect by an asylum seeker, who claimed asylum at the French border, against a potential removal from France to a country where there is real reason to believe he would face the risk of being subjected to ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR.