Case summaries
The Court considered that the decision-maker should have had taken into consideration the applicant’s alleged vulnerable situation, and as a result ordered the case’s remittal to the Central Administrative Court of Lisbon so evidence could be collected on this.
In the lack of audiovisual recording of the interview, the Judge must set the appearance hearing, otherwise being the decree issued null and void for the breach of the adversarial principle.
The applicant appealed the Migration Court’s decision to dismiss his application for asylum on grounds of the availability of an internal protection alternative in the applicants home country of Afghanistan.
The Migration Court of Appeal granted the appeal as it was held that the question of internal protection can only be assessed after the court has made an individual assessment of the original grounds for protection invoked by the applicant.
Courts must establish the current situation of the region from which the complainant originates or which can be considered as an internal flight alternative and relate it to the individual situation of the complainant in the grounds of the decision.
In the case of a Sunni Iraqi, the lower instance court did not sufficiently consider the complainant’s region of origin, the possibility of return to that region or the possibility of internal flight. Thereby the court violated the right to equal treatment among foreigners.
Requests for family reunification must be examined even if the third-country national, who is a family member of an EU citizen who has never exercised his right of freedom of movement, is subject to an entry ban. Whether there is a relationship of dependency between the third-country national and the EU citizen and whether public policy grounds justify the entry ban must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
The fact that a person has been the subject, in the past, of a decision excluding him from refugee status cannot automatically permit the finding that the mere presence of that person in the territory of the host Member State constitutes a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society. A case-by-case assessment is necessary before a measure based on grounds of public policy or public security is adopted. This assessment includes weighing the threat against the protection of the rights of EU citizens and their family members.
Similarly, in order to adopt an expulsion decision with due regard to the principle of proportionality, account must be taken of, inter alia, the nature and gravity of the alleged conduct of the individual concerned, the duration and, when appropriate, the legality of his residence in the host Member State, the period of time that has elapsed since that conduct, the individual’s behaviour during that period, the extent to which he currently poses a danger to society, and the solidity of social, cultural and family links with the host Member State.
The case concerns an application for the annulment of the decision of the Appeals Committee which rejected the applicant’s previous application to overturn the decision of the Regional Asylum Office of Samos whereby he was denied international protection. The Court determined that the case was inadmissible, accepted the relevant justifications given by the Appeals Committee and rejected the application.
The judicial examination of whether subsidiary protection shall be approved requires a thorough assessment of the individual case. This applies in particular for especially vulnerable persons.
In the assessment of a real risk of inhuman treatment or a serious threat to life or physical integrity in a situation of indiscriminate violence within an armed conflict, not only the general security and supply situation has to be considered, but also the “specific distinguishing features” of the applicant, which expose him/her to a higher risk than the average population.
In the present case, the Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht, BVwG) did not assess the individual circumstances of the applicant, disregarding the binding force of a previous ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof, VwGH).
In cases of deportation to a third country, the competent authority is required to assess, on a case-by-case basis, if the third country offers effective legal protection against deportation to the state of origin.
In the case of a Turkish journalist of Kurdish origin, the competent authority had only insufficiently assessed if the applicant enjoys sufficient legal protection in Brazil against refoulment to Turkey. It therefore violated her right to be heard.