Case summaries

The reception conditions for beneficiaries of international protection in Bulgaria are such that they may face severe material deprivation due to “indifference” on the part of the authorities (cfr. CJEU, Ibrahim), potentially amounting to a violation of Article 3 ECHR / Article 4 CFREU.

When the State Secretary decides that a request for international protection is not admissible, because the applicants have refugee status in Bulgaria, it is not sufficient for him to refer to the principle of mutual trust between EU Member States and to the Council of State’s jurisprudence, but he is obliged to examine the applicant’ s individual circumstances and to obtain specific information and guarantees from the Bulgarian authorities.

The governmental authority is requesting an authorization to detain an immigrant after an alleged infraction of article 53 of the Organic Law 4/2000 in order to guarantee the enforcement of a possible return procedure. Following the procedures detailed in article 62 of said law, the Court assessed the particular circumstances of the case, including the risk of nonappearance and the possible existence of previous administrative sanctions of the subject, concluding that the lack of roots in the Spanish territory and the fact that he already filled in an asylum application show that the detention is not necessary in this case.

Member States are required to revoke subsidiary protection on the basis of art. 19(1), if they find out that the conditions that led to the granting of status were never met, regardless of whether the incorrect assessment of facts leading to the status is imputable exclusively to the national authority itself

It is necessary to make a proportionality assessment with consideration of both the gravity of the crime committed by the applicant and the interests of society, and the applicant’s individual rights, particularly his right to private and family life under Article 8.

The Federal Administrative Court failed to fully assess the impact that the measure of removal would have on the applicant. The evolution of the applicant's conduct since the occurrence of the crime, the applicant’s deteriorating medical condition, and his social, cultural and family ties in the host country were not sufficiently examined in the decision. The failure to assess the proportionality of the removal order and amounted to a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

The discretionary clause in Art. 17 II Dublin-III regulation might under certain circumstances oblige the member states to take charge of an applicant. This can be particularly the case, if the competence of the member state under chapter III of the Dublin-III regulation would not be given because of a deadline expiry the applicant had no influence on.

This appeal considered what the correct approach is to the assessment of medical evidence in asylum claims alleging torture. Hence, it was declared that decision-makers can receive assistance from medical experts who are able to offer an opinion about the injury inflicted. The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal and remitted KV’s appeal against the refusal of asylum to the Upper Tribunal for fresh determination.  

The applicants’ personal circumstances and the general conditions in the country of origin have to be taken into account, when assessing whether an internal flight alternative exists. Relevant sources like the UNHCR guidelines have to be used.  Otherwise this constitutes a significant procedural error. 

CJEU rules on the correct processing of applications for international protection lodged separately by family members and the interrelationship between them.