Case summaries

The Court held that there was no violation of Article 3 ECHR in the event of the applicant’s removal to Guinea because the applicant had failed to show a real risk of being re-excised in the event of her return to her country of origin. The Court also found that there had been no violation of Article 13 ECHR.

The non-suspensive effect of a decision not to further examine a subsequent application under Article 32 of the 2005 Asylum Procedures Directive is not in violation of Articles 19(2) and 47 of the Charter since the decision’s enforcement will not lead to the applicant being removed and is therefore unlikely to expose the applicant to a risk of inhumane treatment.

In appealing against the Migration Agency’s and the Migration Court’s rejections of the Applicant’s application for leave to remain in Sweden, the Applicant claimed grounds for protection which he/she had not previously raised before the Migration Agency. Claiming grounds for protection meant that special requirements for asylum applications applied and the Applicant was entitled to a personal interview before the Migration Agency. The Migration Court of Appeal referred the Applicant’s case back to the Migration Agency as the Migration Court could not be the body to try the asylum application in the first instance.

The Court found that the applicant would face a real risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR if extradited to Kyrgyzstan, having regard to the various reports from UN bodies and international NGOs assessing the situation in the country.

Taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the Court found that the detention conditions of the applicant did not amount to a breach of Article 3 ECHR. However, Malta’s domestic law remained in violation of Article 5 § 4 ECHR as it did not provide an effective remedy to challenge the lawfulness of the detention. The applicant’s detention after being granted subsidiary protection for a further 5 days was a violation of Article 5 § 1 ECHR.

This case is concerned with whether the Secretary of State for Justice has discharged or breached his duty of care with regards to the risk of refoulement in an asylum application.

The Supreme Court quashed the detention and deportation warrants issued against a citizen from the Congo, following a number of prosedural failures by the Cypriot Government to comply with the Cap. 105 of the Alien and Migration Law and Directive 2008/115/EC, denying him the opportunity for voluntary departure.

The question remains open and needs to be clarified in legal proceedings, whether there are systemic flaws in the Bulgarian asylum procedure and conditions of admission, such as pose a risk of infringement of Article 4 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR) (cf. Article 3(2) Regulation No. 604/2013(Dublin III)) – in particular in the case of a return under the Dublin system.

The ECtHR recognised a breach of Article 3 ECHR in respect of the conditions at a Greek detention centre, and a breach of Article 3 in conjunction with Article 13 in respect of failures by the Greek authorities in the processing of the Applicant’s claim. However, his rights under Article 5 had not been breached because the detention was prescribed by law and served a legitimate purpose.

Asylum seekers cannot refer to a delayed take charge request by one Member State to another, in particular when the requested Member State has accepted the request. Article 17 (1) of Regulation No. 343/2003 (Dublin II) does not guarantee individual protection for asylum applicants against a transfer to another Member State.