Case summaries

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.

This case was an application for a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court. The applicant unsuccessfully argued that she was denied an effective remedy within the meaning of Art 39 of the Procedures Directive in respect of her claim for asylum.

The case concerned the proposed expulsion of the Applicant to Lebanon. He argued that it would expose him to a risk of ill‑treatment or death, that he did not have an effective remedy in respect of his claim in that regard, and that his detention pending deportation had been too lengthy and unjustified.

This was an application for an interim injunction preventing the removal of the applicants pending the outcome of their application for leave to apply for judicial review.  The underlying leave application raised several different points, of these, one was deemed arguable: that Ireland’s deportation regime involving a lifetime ban on re-entry is contrary to the ECHR and Irish Constitution.

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 concerned the concept of ‘safe country’ within the Dublin system and respect for fundamental rights of asylum seekers. The Court held that EU law prevents the application of a conclusive presumption that Member States observe all the fundamental rights of the European Union. Art. 4 Charter must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may not transfer an asylum seeker to the Member State responsible within the meaning of the Regulation where they cannot be unaware that systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions of asylum seekers in that Member State amount to substantial grounds for believing that the asylum seeker would face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of the provision. Once it is impossible to transfer the asylum seeker to the responsible Member State then subject to the sovereignty clause the State can check if another Member State is responsible by examining further criteria under the Regulation. This should not take an unreasonable amount of time and if necessary then the Member State concerned must examine the asylum application.