Case summaries

The examination by the Dutch judge in second and subsequent asylum procedures was not in breach of Article 32 of the Asylum Procedures Directive, Article 13 of the ECHR, or Article 47 of the CFREU.

The examination by the Dutch judge in second and subsequent asylum procedures was not in breach of Article 32 of the Asylum Procedures Directive, Article 13 of the ECHR, or Articles 18 and 19 of the CFREU.

The application by the Applicant for the assignment of a legal adviser for the appeal proceedings was rejected by the Asylum Court because it was late, as the Applicant had only submitted the application after the expiry of the one-month transition period. The Constitutional Court annulled the corresponding transitional regulation on grounds of unconstitutionality: a deadline of only one month was too short to deal with the lack of understanding of asylum seekers of the language and law.

An exclusion order was issued to the Applicant and therefore a measure within the meaning of the Returns Directive. Without undertaking an oral hearing, the appeals authority confirmed the issue of the exclusion order, but reduced its duration. In accordance with Art 47 Para. 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the appeals authority was however obliged to undertake an oral hearing.

The case concerns a recognised as a refugee in the United Kingdom, who was to be deported in the interests of national security to Jordan. The UK Government obtained assurances from Jordan that he would not be subjected to ill-treatment and would be tried fairly by the Jordanian State Security Court. However the applicant alleged that, if deported to Jordan, he would be at real risk of ill-treatment and an unfair trial.

The detention of asylum applicants may undermine their ability to claim asylum and that an ‘effective remedy’ requires an appeal with suspensive effect against refoulement in order to prevent irreparable harm, sufficient time to prepare the appeal and effective legal assistance and interpretation.

The Constitutional Court presents its opinion on the nature of the rights and principles contained in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union(CFRU) and on jurisdiction for the decision on questions of interpretation in connection with the CFRU. It gave an answer in the affirmative to the question of whether the CFRU, in particular Article 47 CFRU, is applicable in asylum proceedings if no such violation was found in the actual case at hand.

The case concerns the unlawfulness of detention in Hungary of two Ivorian nationals pending the asylum proceedings.

A Russian Federation citizen arrived in Finland from another EU country (Lithuania) where he/she alleged that he/she had been persecuted and claimed international protection on this basis. The Immigration Service denied the Applicant a residence permit, failed to examine the application for international protection and decided to deport him/her to Lithuania. The Immigration Service considered Lithuania to be a safe third country and the application for international protection was not examined in relation to his/her country of origin.  The Supreme Administrative Court took the view that the issue of international protection could not be dealt with in Lithuania as the grounds for the application were cited as persecution in that same country.  The Administrative Court was ordered  to overturn the Immigration Service’s decision and return the case back for further consideration.

Two main issues are addressed by the Court:

Is the Minister required to re-examine a negative credibility finding by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner (ORAC) when such is disputed in the subsidiary protection application but has not been the subject of an appeal determination by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT) in the refugee status determination procedure?

Does Regulation 4(5) preclude the Minister from taking any steps in the preparation of a deportation order prior to a final determination of the subsidiary protection application?

Both issues are answered by the Court in the negative.