Case summaries

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. 

The case relates to the detention and proposed deportation from Belgium of an irregularly present Cameroonian national suffering from HIV.

The Court unanimously found that her deportation to Cameroon would not violate Article 2 or Article 3 ECHR. However, she had not been able to effectively challenge the deportation decision, in violation of Article 13.

The Court found a violation of Article 3 based on the lack of appropriate treatment while she was detained. Further, the additional period of detention following interim measures by the Court preventing her removal, was unlawful and violated Article 5(1)f).  

According to the residence permit application, the Applicant, born in 1935, has various ailments and he is fully dependent on his daughter who lives in Finland and is a Finnish citizen.  In an interim order, the Administrative Court turned down the Applicant’s non-refoulement argument  and held that judgment would be made on the substantive issue at a later date.  While the substantive issue was still pending at the Administrative Court seeking a stay on the execution of the interim order so that he would not to be deported while the Administrative Court decided on the substantive issue (a ‘repeal’ application).  As according to national legal provisions, a repeal application can only be made on a judgment  which has entered into force, the repeal application was inadmissible. Administrative Court, the Applicant applied to the Supreme

Because the failure to accept the non-refoulement argument might render the appeal on the substantive issue de facto ineffective, in order to guarantee the Applicant’s legal protection, in exceptional circumstances there was reason to carry out a review to determine whether his appeal should be handled  by the Supreme Administrative Court without it being detrimental to the final decision under Section 58 of the Administrative Procedure Act and Section 199 Article 2 of the Aliens Act. 

Because the Asylum Court refused the appeal only one day after service of the ruling on the appointment of a legal advisor, the Applicant was not granted an appropriate period of time to use the legal advice and any representation in the proceedings and it was therefore made impossible for him to exercise his rights effectively in the proceedings.

This case concerned access to an effective remedy in the context of expulsion proceedings from the Czech Republic. It deals with access to an effective remedy and the reliance on Art. 13 ECHR for arguable claims under Article 3 ECHR on the basis that the Appellants would be ill-treated if returned to Guinea. The Court held that there was a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3.