Case summaries
The presumption that Italy remains in compliance with its EU and International Law obligations related to the reception and integration of asylum seekers and Beneficiaries of International Protection has not been rebutted. Asylum seekers and BIPs suffering from severe psychological trauma can be returned to Italy with no real risk of breaching article 3 ECHR, or 4 CFREU, since the Country's reception capacities have not been exceeded, while effective medical treatment is available under the same terms as to Italian nationals.
Where negative reports regarding the reception conditions and inhuman or degrading treatment in a first country of asylum indicate that an Applicant may not be safe in such a country, an Applicant’s request to remain in a Member State pending a decision on their right to remain must be given the benefit of doubt and outweigh the public’s interest in immediate enforcement of the ordered transfer.
The case considered an application against the decision of the Secretary of State denying the Claimants a right of in-country appeal against the removal of the Claimants to Italy under the Dublin Regulation. The Claimants argued that their removal to Italy would expose them to a real risk of a breach of their rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The court found that there was no evidence to rebut the presumption that Italy would comply with its obligations under EU laws or of special vulnerability in the personal circumstances of any of the Claimants, to support the assertion that Article 3 of the ECHR would be breached by the Claimants’ removal to Italy.
This case concerned an application for a licence for a civil marriage with a Greek citizen where there was an inability to provide a certificate of being unmarried or a birth certificate because of disrupted relationship with homeland and in the context of the submission of a sworn statement regarding the absence of any impediment to marriage. The case considered the balance between the safeguards of family law and a State's obligation to protect the fundamental rights of refugees. Under the principle of proportionality, the private and family life of the individual is inviolable, bearing in mind that the lack of evidence of being unmarried should not prevent the him from being granted a licence to enter into a civil marriage with his partner, the mother of their two minor children which he has already voluntarily recognised. It is possible to substitute in concreto the said evidence with a simple sworn statement and, therefore, the Applicant does satisfy the legal requirements for the granting of a marriage licence.
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.
After six and a half years of single asylum proceedings, the Applicants, a family with three children who were well-integrated in Austria, , were expelled by the Asylum Court to Armenia. The Constitutional Court revoked this decision on the grounds of a violation of Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The reasons for this were primarily that the integration of the children was given insufficient weight.
Foreign citizens with refugee status have the same rights as Italian citizens as regards social assistance and related rights such as, for example, payment of attendance allowance under L.18/80.
The European Parliament sought the annulment of Article 4(1), Article 4(6) and Article 8 of the Family Reunification Directive, as being incompatible with the right to respect for family life and non-discrimination based on age.
The Court found that these provisions created a limited margin of appreciation for Member States which was no greater than that allowed for in ECtHR case law, and could be exercised compatibly with fundamental rights.