Case summaries

This case concerned the interpretation of Article 20(1)(d) and Article 20(2) of the Dublin Regulation and the analysis of time limits under these provisions when the Member State provides for suspensive effect of an appeal. The time limit for the period of implementation of the transfer begins to run, not as from the time of the provisional judicial decision suspending transfer but from the time of the judicial decision which rules on the merits of the procedure and which is no longer such as to prevent its implementation.

The applicant challenged his transfer to Greece from the UK under the Dublin II Regulation, on the basis that the situation for asylum seekers in Greece would lead to a violation of Article 3 ECHR. The Court declared the application manifestly ill-founded and therefore inadmissible, as it was presumed that Greece would comply with its obligations and would not refoule him to his county of origin Iraq. 

Failure to receive basic services does not represent a reduction within the meaning of Art 16 Reception Conditions Directive. The Reception Conditions Directive does not standardise decision deadlines with regard to applications for the granting of basic services.

The European Court of Human Rights found that the expulsion of a Turkish national from Bulgaria violated his right to respect for private and family life (Article 8) and his right to an effective remedy (Article 13). What is more, it held that the Bulgarian authorities did not abide with the procedural safeguards relating to the expulsion of nationals. 

In view of the fact that the Regional Court failed to address the objections made by the Appellant in his appeal, unlawfully considered the  Appellant to be making an application for recognition as a refugee sur place, failed to deal with the evidence submitted by the Appellant in conjunction with his appeal (that his case was different from an application for recognition as a refugee “sur place”), and since it was beyond doubt that the Court acted on outside of  the subject matter of the appeal, it denied the Appellant the opportunity to have his objections heard before the Court.

The applicant, a Tunisian national, having served a sentence in Italy on the charge, among others, of criminal conspiracy, faced deportation from Italy to Tunisia, where he risked ill-treatment.

The Court found that the deportation of the applicant to Tunisia would constitute a violation of Article 3 ECHR. The absolute nature of Article 3 meant that the conduct of the applicant was irrelevant for the purposes of Article 3.

The case concerns access to a remedy with suspensive effect by an asylum seeker, who claimed asylum at the French border, against a potential removal from France to a country where there is real reason to believe he would face the risk of being subjected to ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR.

This case concerns how internal protection alternatives should be assessed when identifying whether there is a real risk of a violation of Art. 3 ECHR in the country of origin. It also concerns generalized violence and an individual assessment of risk in Somalia. The Court held that the Applicant’s expulsion to Somalia would be in violation of Art. 3 of the Convention and that there was no violation of Art. 13.

Within the meaning of the provisions of Article 2(1) and Article 3 para. 1, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of Presidential Decree 61/1999, for an appeal brought against an initial negative decision to be rejected for being out of time, there is no requirement for there to have been a prior judgment by the Committee formed under Article 3(5) which – as is clear from the regulations concerning its composition and operation – is responsible for considering the substantive conditions for recognising refugee status to a foreigner.