Case summaries

The European Court of Human Rights held that the removal of an Albanian national from Switzerland to Albania would not violate his right to family life.

Provisional centres are a type of immigration detention centre and European law does not mandate ex novo a specific type of detention.

Directive 2008/115/EC imposes an unconditional right on Member States to provide separate housing to detained persons who are part of a family unit. Conditions on such housing such as “if possible” and “the centre has modules able to guarantee the family’s unity and privacy” are invalid.

Detention centres are free to choose whether the police may act as guards in the centre. If they do so, the police will follow their internal rules regarding the carrying of firearms.

A detained person can only be detained for the second time if such detention is based on new grounds, in which case the detention period can be extended to the maximum legally permitted period of time.

The power to suspend a detained person’s right to communicate when they do not comply with internal regulations can be exerted without a court warrant.

For the search of a detained person to be justified, two requirements must be met: (i) it must be a necessary means to preserve the order and security of the centre and (ii) it must be justified by the previous behaviour of the detainee .

National legislation may impose a list of unauthorised objects on detainees.

The State is obliged to adopt legislation which allows the refugee to actually exercise the right to respect for family life in its territory. Under Article 53(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia the scope of family life firstly includes the nuclear family and secondly, where specific factual circumstances dictate, members of the family who are not nuclear but who are similar or perform the same function.

The legislator limited the right to family reunification by enacting an exhaustive definition of eligible family members for reunification, excluding any other form of family unity.  According to the Constitutional Court, the legislator disproportionately restricted the right of refugees to respect for family life and violated the right of the appellant under the Article 53(3) of the Constitution.

This case examined the compatibility of the Dublin II Regulation with the European Convention on Human Rights regarding transfers to Italy under the Dublin II Regulation.

The Court found a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights if the Swiss authorities were to send an Afghan couple and their six children back to Italy under the Dublin Regulation without having first obtained individual guarantees from the Italian authorities that the applicants would be taken charge of in a manner adapted to the age of the children and that the family would be kept together.

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.