Case summaries

  • My search
  • Keywords
    1
Reset
France - National Court of Asylum, 5 October 2016, Mme Y., N 14012645
Country of applicant: Comoros

Asserting a violation of the procedural rules by the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (‘OFPRA’) when a child’s legal representative or any ad hoc administrator was absent from a hearing, the National Court of Asylum (‘CNDA’) annulled OFPRA’s decision and sent the case back to it to be decided again under the correct circumstances.

The CNDA sets out the limits to the principle of family unity in such as it is not applicable to the child of a refugee, the refugee having obtained that status only through application of the said principle following her marriage with a refugee not being the father of the child.

Date of decision: 05-10-2016
France – Council of State, 4 October 2016, M.A., N° 403799
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

Taking into account, on the one hand relevant facts applicable to the administration and on the other hand facts relevant to the personal situation of the applicant, the Council of State rejects an appeal directed against a court order from the Administrative Tribunal of Toulouse denying the applicant’s accommodation request due to the lack of urgency of the applicant’s situation.

Date of decision: 04-10-2016
Austria – Constitutional Court, Decision dated 23 September 2016, E 1200/2016-12
Country of applicant: Iran

A general circular letter send by Italian authorities is not a sufficient individual guarantee regarding a Dublin Transfer of a man suffering from various serious diseases.

Date of decision: 23-09-2016
Germany – Bavarian Administrative Court, 12 CS 16.1550, 16.08.2016
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

Decision about the (provisional) taking care of an unaccompanied refugee minor and clarification of the steps to verify the age.

Date of decision: 16-08-2016
Netherlands – Court of The Hague, 18 July 2016, NL16.1221

 The transfer of “extra vulnerable” asylum seekers from the Netherlands to Italy is contrary to article 3 ECHR.

Date of decision: 18-07-2016
Poland - Ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court from 6 July 2016 II OSK 1662/15 dismissing the cassation complaint against a decision on discontinuing the asylum procedure
Country of applicant: Russia

Arranging for medical or psychological examination is required, for example, when the third country national indicates that they were subject to violence, which left physical or mental signs which can be confirmed by medical or psychological examination. Not all invoked health problems will require an exam. Moreover, in subsequent proceedings this obligation is limited. The authority has no basis to arrange for such an examination when the event indicated in the subsequent application related to violence which was already subject to examination in the first asylum proceedings and was considered to not be credible.

Date of decision: 06-07-2016
ECtHR – O.M. v. Hungary, Application no. 9912/15, 5 July 2016
Country of applicant: Iran

The ECtHR found the detention of a homosexual asylum seeker in Hungary was arbitrary, in violation of Article 5(1) ECHR. In particular, the Court found that the Hungarian authorities had failed to make an individualised assessment and to take into account the applicant’s vulnerability in the detention facility based on his sexual orientation. The Court emphasised that the authorities should exercise special care when deciding on deprivation of liberty in order to avoid situations which may reproduce the plight that forced asylum seekers to flee in the first place.

Date of decision: 05-07-2016
UK - R (FR and KL (Albania)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, 23 June 2016
Country of applicant: Albania

This case dealt with the issue of whether the Secretary of State’s certification of the asylum claims of the two independent applicants as “clearly unfounded” was flawed on public law grounds, and the important difference between a decision on refugee status itself and a decision on a claim being “clearly unfounded”.
 

Date of decision: 23-06-2016
Poland - Judgement of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw from 22 June 2016 II Aka 59/16 amending the judgement of the court of I instance by increasing the amount of compensation for unlawful detention
Country of applicant: Pakistan

The Court of Appeal in Warsaw and the court of the first instance agreed that the detention of the applicant and her two children was unlawful from the moment the respective court decided on prolonging their detention as irregular migrants, although they have already applied for international protection.

Both courts agreed also that the amount of compensation for unlawful detention is dependent on the degree in which the state contributed to the trauma of the applicants and their inconvenience. In the present case, taking into account the available psychologists’ and psychiatrist’s opinions, the Courts decided that the poor health condition of the applicants was to a great extent caused by traumatic events experienced before coming to Poland – which eventually resulted in granting them refugee status.

However, the Court of Appeal decided to significantly increase the amount of compensation granted to the applicants, especially children, who were particularly vulnerable in this situation. 

Date of decision: 22-06-2016