Case summaries

The case concerned detention and detention conditions in Greece for a Turkish asylum seeker of Kurdish origin, who had been tortured in Turkey, and the conduct of the asylum procedure.

In the opinion of the appeal court, the fact that the defendant disregarded the documents submitted by the applicant in support of his request for an application of Article 3(2) of the Dublin Regulation, and omitted to present an argument in the decision as to why it had not upheld the application, fails to satisfy the requirements of the generally accepted legal principles of administrative procedure, because the outcomes of these actions were not assessed and justified in the decision.

When medico-legal evidence of torture is provided by specialists and found credible it is incumbent on the Migration Board to put forward evidence that there is no further risk of torture in the relevant country. 

If necessary medicines are not accessible through legal means in the country of origin adequate care is not available. 

This case concerned the consideration of expert medical evidence by asylum decision makers and the link with the assessment of credibility. The Court found that the Refugee Appeals Tribunal failed adequately to consider strong medical evidence relating to torture in assessing the overall credibility of the applicant’s refugee claim. The Court also found that it is incumbent upon the asylum decision maker to give reasons for rejecting the contents of medico-legal reports, especially those with a high probative value.

The applicant claimed asylum in 2006 (along with her children) alleging a well founded fear of persecution on the grounds of political opinion. The application was refused in the initial procedure and on appeal.  She returned to Colombia and two years later, returned to Spain and reapplied for asylum and was again refused. She lodged an appeal before the Supreme Court and was granted subsidiary protection.

The European Court of Human Rights held that the deportation of an Iranian national to Iran would give rise to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

This case concerned risk upon return to Iran in a situation where a person has previously been detained and tortured there and had supporting medical evidence. The Court found a violation of Art. 3 ECHR if the Applicant were to be deported to Iran.

The Court obliged the Respondent to conduct new proceedings as it expressed an opinion on the Claimant’s state of health without appointing an expert.