Case summaries

The possibility of submitting evidence for assessment is a basic procedural guarantee. Thus, if the party’s argumentation is based on defined circumstances, essential for his/her case, the responsible authority should hear witnesses and get acquainted with the evidence gathered within asylum proceedings handled by relevant authorities in another EU Member State.  

The case concerns a family of asylum seekers who needed accommodation in Belgium while their asylum application was being considered. The CJEU declares that if a Member State chooses to provide material reception to asylum seekers in the form of a financial allowance rather than direct public services, the allowance must be enough to ensure a dignified standard of living. In addition, the allowance must be provided from the time at which the asylum application is made and should ensure that it is sufficient to enable minor children to be housed with their parents in order to maintain the family unity of the asylum seekers.

A transfer in accordance with the Dublin Regulation does not require the Swedish Migration Board to investigate ex officio whether there are deficiencies in the asylum system in Italy. The transfer does, however, breach the right to a family life, in accordance with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In deciding extradition cases, the best interests of the child, although a primary consideration, could be outweighed by other interests, in this case effective immigration control. The impact of the family's extradition on the interests of the children was judged proportional, if weighed against the Zoumbas' appalling immigration record and the fact that the family could be removed without serious detriment to the children's well-being. Important guidelines were given for the decision of cases involving the welfare of children.

According to section 51 of the Aliens Act, third-country nationals residing in Finland are issued with a temporary residence permit if they cannot be returned to their home country or country of permanent residence for temporary reasons of health or if they cannot be removed from the country.

This case concerned whether it was necessary that there was an enforceable decision to remove the person when the Immigration Service examined the requirements for a residence permit under section 51. The Court considered whether the Immigration Service should examine if there are in reality obstacles to the removal of a person, before it makes a decision to remove this person.

The Asylum Court violated the right of access to the courts by rejecting an appeal in a case where an application for family reunification had been submitted at an Embassy. The asylum authorities acted arbitrarily in assuming that there was no legal entitlement to a formal notification of the decision in writing on such an application.

The rules on safe third countries, according to which applications for international protection in the event of a threatened violation of Art 8 ECHR must not be refused on the basis of formal safety in another country, is to be applied similarly to the Dublin II Regulation. If the Applicant already has subsidiary protection in one Member State, in accordance with the Dublin II Regulation his application in a different State in which his son, who is a minor and entitled to asylum, is living, (in addition to the Applicant’s pregnant wife) must not be refused.  On the contrary, this State must make use of the right to assume responsibility for the examination.

The Court found that the decision refusing protection and containing a return order issued to an asylum seeker, whose spouse obtained a temporary residence permit within a regularisation action, would infringe his right to respect for family life, as defined in the ECHR. 

In the case of the first Applicant, the exceptional personal circumstances dictate round the clock highly qualified medical care, which is provided by health care institutions in Slovenia, while home care is provided by the second Applicant. If such a sick person were forced to leave the stable conditions in Slovenia and start living in a collective centre in BiH, the first Applicant could suffer inhuman or degrading treatment due to inappropriate health care, which would represent serious harm, which in turn justifies subsidiary protection in Slovenia.

In the event that the second Applicant was returned to the country of origin, she would be separated from the first Applicant (i.e. her family) contrary to the fundamental principle of family unity. Apart from this, in the event of returning to BiH or to a collective centre in BiH, it would be reasonable to believe that, as a young Roma female without a family and means for survival, she would also be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment due to the discrimination against the Roma population.

Even if an unaccompanied minor refugee has entered the country together with a brother (sister) of full age, Art 6 Dublin II Regulation is applicable to the former and within the meaning of the judgment of the CJEU of 06.06.2013, case C-648/11, the relevant country of the asylum application is responsible. With regard to the accompanying brother (sister) of full age, use should be made of the right to assume the examination owing to the family connection in order to avoid a violation of Art 8 ECHR.