Case summaries

The court found that the removal of a Somali applicant to Italy under the Dublin Regulation would not result in a violation of article 3of the Convention and would not entail any violation of the rights set in article 1, 2, 5, 6 and 13.

Where negative reports regarding the reception conditions and inhuman or degrading treatment in a first country of asylum indicate that an Applicant may not be safe in such a country, an Applicant’s request to remain in a Member State pending a decision on their right to remain must be given the benefit of doubt and outweigh the public’s interest in immediate enforcement of the ordered transfer.

An Applicant who has been convicted of a serious crime is excluded from the right to claim protection. A life sentence with an undeterminable term does not constitute a temporary obstruction to deportation and therefore an Applicant cannot claim obstruction as grounds for leave to remain. Further, a family connection which has been examined by a criminal court as part of a final judgment cannot be re-examined as part of an asylum application.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has held that the detention of an unaccompanied minor at Soufli border posts for over 5 months constituted a breach of Article 3 of the ECHR as well as a violation of the right to an effective remedy and the right to liberty and security.

The internal protection alternative is not only possible when the security situation in the proposed area is so poor that the threshold of serious harm would be met, but also when the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to settle down in a designated area. In order to establish the latter it is not enough to hypothetically assume that the applicant can arrange the housing by himself and take care of his social and economic security or that as a young man he could find work and survive. It is necessary to determine whether in the place of IPA, economic and social existence is assured at least to the extent that the threshold for a violation of Article 3 of the Convention is not met.  

The case examines the risk to an Iranian national if expelled to Iran in light of his political activities against the country’s regime. The Court confirmed that such a return would give rise to a violation of Article 3 ECHR and whilst finding an Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 3 violation as admissible it raised no separate issue in the case.

This case examined the compatibility of the Dublin II Regulation with the European Convention on Human Rights regarding transfers to Italy under the Dublin II Regulation.

The Court found a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights if the Swiss authorities were to send an Afghan couple and their six children back to Italy under the Dublin Regulation without having first obtained individual guarantees from the Italian authorities that the applicants would be taken charge of in a manner adapted to the age of the children and that the family would be kept together.

The case examines allegations of the indiscriminate expulsion of foreign nationals from Italy to Greece who had no access to asylum procedures and who subsequently feared deportation to their countries of origin. In regards to four of the applicants, the Court held that Greece violated Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or regarding treatment).  It also held that Italy violated Articles 13 and 3 as well as Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens.)

The Court ruled that under national law the authorities are obliged to issue a decision on discontinuing the procedure if another Member State is responsible for the application. The provision leaves no margin of discretion. The authorities had no obligation to examine the way that the other State treats asylum seekers, if it is a Member State of the EU and applies European standards of dealing with third country nationals.

In the situation where the other State decided to accept the responsibility and examine the application, it should be understood that they examined its admissibility in the light of the Dublin II Regulation, taking into account the time that the applicant spent away from that State. 

Hungary’s practice of not suspending its deportation procedures for second time asylum applicants amounts to a serious and unlawful interference with an applicant’s constitutionally guaranteed right to apply for refugee status.