Case summaries
The CJEU ruled on whether an individual could appeal a decision which refused refugee status but granted subsidiary protection status, even if the rights and benefits afforded by each international protection status are identical in national law.
CJEU rules on the correct processing of applications for international protection lodged separately by family members and the interrelationship between them.
The French National Court on Asylum has made an error of law by refusing to grant at the very least subsidiary protection to the applicant following his new request to re-examine his situation, despite a condemnation from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) for the violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Withdrawal of detention due to the use of forged travel documents and subsequent obligation to appear before the competent authorities, given to the pending status of the application for asylum.
In the lack of audiovisual recording of the interview, the Judge must set the appearance hearing, otherwise being the decree issued null and void for the breach of the adversarial principle.
The ECtHR ruled that the detention of a Syrian national was unlawful as his return to Syria was impracticable, which the authorities should have known at that time. It was incumbent on the domestic authorities to consider alternative measures in respect of the applicant. The applicant did not have the benefit of an examination of the lawfulness of his detention to a sufficient degree. Therefore, there was a violation of Articles 5(1) and (4) ECHR.
The ECtHR also ruled that his detention at the Zografou police station led to a violation of his rights under Article 3 ECHR, since it lacked the amenities required for prolonged periods of detention.
The applicant, a Chinese citizen, feared, if she returned to China, she would be persecuted and exposed to torture by the Chinese Communist Government due to her Falun Gong activities.
The Refugee Appeals Board did not find that she was a particular profiled member of Falun Gong or that she was wanted by the Chinese Authorities as she left China legally notwithstanding that she had been detained several times for shorter periods and imprisoned for seven years during which she was exposed to torture. However, the Board found that the Chinese Authorities were aware of the applicant ‘s political positions regarding Falun Gong and the human rights situation in China due to comprehensive media activities and participation in demonstrations in Copenhagen. Therefore, after an overall assessment including the fact that the applicant had been imprisoned for seven years, the Board granted the applicant reugee status under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (1).
The complainant, an Ethnic Maktumin Stateless Kurd from Amuda, Al-Hasakah, Syria, was granted temporary protection under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (3).
On 31 August 2017 the complainant lodged a complaint claiming refugee status under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (1) or alternatively subsidiary protection under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (2).
The Board found that the complainant fulfilled the conditions for subsidiary protection under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (2) as he would risk participating in acts of war during the compulsory military service.
The applicant’s asylum claim has been rejected on the grounds of Article 1F(c) of the 1951 Refugee Convention. The act he committed would amount to being contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN. However, the Council of State hereby decided that in failing to seek and qualify the severity of this act in the light of its effects internationally, the lower court made an error of law.
The ECtHR ruled that the detention of an Egyptian national upon arrival in Belgium was lawful as there had been no violation of Article 5(1) of ECHR and the refusal of refugee status was justified.