Case summaries

In the case of an individual benefiting from subsidiary protection according to the Qualification Directive, the non-fulfilment of the passport obligation cannot be taken into account in the exercising of discretion for the assessment of authorisation for access to employment.

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.

In principle both parents may claim the right to join an unaccompanied minor refugee.  

This right to join a child will only apply up until the point that the latter comes of age.

Parents may present a claim for a visa by means of an application for temporary legal protection before the child comes of age. 

One cannot accept the position that an Applicant must in every case show that he or she has exhausted all available forms of protection in his or her country of origin. The condition of absence of state protection must not in every case be understood to mean an absolute obligation to exhaust all domestic procedures. The fact that the police, as the Applicant has shown, have no basis upon which to launch an investigation would suggest that the Applicant did apply to the state authorities for protection but that no protection was granted.

This is a judgment on the cassation appeal against the judgment of the Regional Administrative Court in Warsaw (case ref.: V SA/Wa 934/10) of 5 August 2010 dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Local Government Appeals Court in Warsaw on refusal to grant assistance within the framework of an integration programme for foreigners.

The rights of refugees and of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection in regard to integration assistance should not be withdrawn or denied for the sole reason that they have been convicted of a crime – regardless of whether they committed the crime prior to receiving protection or prior to submitting an application for integration assistance. Such action would not be in the public interest, for it is assumed, in regard to the decision to provide protection to the foreigner, that the state should take steps to facilitate the integration of foreigners.

The case concerns an Afghan national who applied for a residence permit for the purpose of residing with his

wife and children who had been granted Netherlands nationality. He complained about the refusal to exempt him from the statutory administrative charge, EUR 830, required to obtain a decision on his request for a residence permit and which he could not afford to pay. The Court examined that complaint under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).

This case examined the compatibility of the Dublin II Regulation with the European Convention on Human Rights regarding transfers to Greece under the Dublin II Regulation. The Court found that there was a violation of Article 3 ECHR by the Greece Government because of the applicant’s conditions of detention, violation of Article 3 ECHR by Greece concerning the applicant’s living conditions in Greece, violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3 ECHR against Greece because of the deficiencies in the asylum procedure followed in the applicant’s case and the risk of his expulsion to Afghanistan without any serious examination of the merits of his asylum application and without any access to an effective remedy. The Court also found in relation to Belgium that there was a violation of Article 3 by sending the applicant back to Greece and exposing him to risks linked to the deficiencies in the asylum procedure in that State, also held against Belgium a violation of Article 3 for sending him to Greece and exposing him to detention and living conditions there that were in breach of that ECHR article. The Court also found a violation of Article 13 ECHR taking in conjunction with Article 3 ECHR against Belgium.

This case concerned whether the provisions of the Reception Conditions Directive apply to subsequent asylum applications (fresh claims) as with initial claims for asylum. It was confirmed that that the provisions do apply. 

The applicant was expelled from Russia on the basis of his religious activities and separated from his infant son as a result. While Russia attempted to justify this on the ground of national security, the Court held that sufficient evidence was not provided and that Articles 5, 8, 9 and 38 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 had been violated.

This case concerned the removal of a Sri Lankan national of Tamil ethnicity to Sri Lanka. The Court held that he belonged to a specific group all of whose members were at risk of ill-treatment and so could not be returned. The Applicant did not need to show that he was more at risk than others in this group. The case concerned a situation of generalized violence in Sri Lanka.