Case summaries

The expulsion of the applicant to Somalia was in violation of Article 8 of the Convention, because the offences committed by the applicant did not posed a threat to public order and he had not previously been warned of expulsion or had a conditional expulsion order imposed. Furthermore, the applicant also had very strong ties to Denmark and virtually no ties with Somalia. Therefore, the expulsion of Mr. Abdi, combined with a life-long ban on returning, was disproportionate.

The Return Directive does not prevent a Member State from placing in administrative detention a third-country national residing illegally on its territory, in order to carry out the forced transfer of that national to another Member State in which that national has refugee status, where that national has refused to comply with the order to go to that other Member State and it is not possible to issue a return decision to him or her.

The reception conditions for beneficiaries of international protection in Bulgaria are such that they may face severe material deprivation due to “indifference” on the part of the authorities (cfr. CJEU, Ibrahim), potentially amounting to a violation of Article 3 ECHR / Article 4 CFREU.

When the State Secretary decides that a request for international protection is not admissible, because the applicants have refugee status in Bulgaria, it is not sufficient for him to refer to the principle of mutual trust between EU Member States and to the Council of State’s jurisprudence, but he is obliged to examine the applicant’ s individual circumstances and to obtain specific information and guarantees from the Bulgarian authorities.

1. A change of the destination country in a return decision by an administrative authority should be regarded as a new return decision requiring an effective remedy in compliance with Article 47 CFREU.

2. The national legislation providing for a safe transit country ground applicable in the present case is contrary to EU law.

3. The obligation imposed on a third-country national to remain permanently in a closed and limited transit zone, within which their movement is limited and monitored, and which the latter cannot legally leave voluntarily, in any direction whatsoever, constitutes a deprivation of liberty, characterised as "detention" within the meaning of the Reception Conditions (RCD) and Returns Directives (RD).

4. Neither the RCD nor Article 43 of the Asylum Procedures Directive authorise detention in transit zones for a period exceeding four weeks.

5. Detention under the RCD and the RD must comply with the relevant guarantees under EU law including being based on a reasoned detention decision; consisting of a measure of last resort, following an individualised assessment of the case, its necessity and proportionality; and effective judicial review should be available. An applicant for international protection cannot be held in detention solely on the ground that they cannot support themselves. Where detention is found to contravene EU law, domestic courts may release the applicant and order the authorities to provide accommodation in line with the RCD provisions. They are empowered to do so, even if they have no clear jurisdiction under national law.

Given the emergency of the situation, family reunification could only be refused in circumstances where the relevant individual does not comply with principles of public order.

As a result, the Court concluded that there were serious doubts as to the legality of the decisions refusing family reunification.

An authority examining an application for international protection by an individual already holding protection status in another Member Statemust check whether the protection of fundamental rights is systematically guaranteed by the country already providing international protection. This especially concerns applicants who are entirely dependent on public aid, and, in particular, on the public health system of the country providing them protection. 

The Spanish Supreme Court’s Administrative Chamber decides on the appeal of the State Attorney. He appealed the National Court’s judgement that accepted to consider an application for the re-examination of international protection that was denied in first instance, and was presented in a different place. The Supreme Court concludes that even if an application is not presented before the competent authority, are these authorities the ones who have to refer the case to the competent. Since this referral was not done, the petition for re-examination is valid.

The Council of State concludes that the Legislative Decree 113/2018 (also referred to as ‘Salvini Decree’) that reorganises the Italian reception facilities for asylum seekers does not affect the principle of mutual trust between EU member states underpinning the Dublin Regulation. The expected limits on access to adequate reception centres, specifically for vulnerable persons, does not amount to systemic flaws in the sense of Article 3 of the Dublin Regulation. 

In the absence of EU rules concerning the procedural requirements with regard to the submission and examination of an application for international protection, Member States must determine those requirements provided that they do not render in practice impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of the right to seek asylum.

Neither the omission nor the delay of the Immigration Office can deprive an asylum applicant of the right to obtain the rehearing of their legal status in case of a change in the circumstances in their country of origin.