Case summaries

A person, with a well-founded fear, within the meaning of the Geneva Convention, of being harmed by their family if they return to their country of origin because they are a member of a particular social group and are unable to rely on effective protection from the state, may be entitled to claim refugee status.  

The applicant did not have the possibility to have his allegations (which also supported his subsequent application)  duly taken into consideration. His written answers to the questions asked by the administrative authorities on his subsequent application were not documented with precision. His allegations need to be examined and evaluated further.

Whilst the Appeals Committee believes that the applicant was ‘wronged’ during the administrative procedures in the First and Second Degree (pursuant to Decree 113/2013), the Committee is unable to request a new personal interview, because no such provision exists within the national legislation (Regulation Service of Authority and Appeal 339/2013 opinion of the Legal Council).

The right to be heard prior to the adoption of a return decision, implies that the administrative authority places the foreign national in a position to present, in a useful and effective manner, his point of view on the illegality of his residency and the motives which will be likely to justify the authorities abstaining from taking a return decision.

It does not, however, imply that the administration has the obligation to put the interested person in a position to present his observations in a manner specific to the decision obliging him to leave French territory or on the decision of placing him in detention pending the execution of the expulsion measure as long as he has been heard on the illegality of his residence or the prospect of expulsion

The procedural guarantee in Art. 4 of the Dublin Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 is mandatory. The guarantee concerns the asylum seekers right to information when they present an application for international protection.

This safeguard is not respected solely because the applicant has undergone a personal interview, he needs to be given the “Common Leaflet”. This aims at guaranteeing that the information has been delivered in a proper way and in a clear and objective manner.

In light of the provisions of Article 5 Dublin III Regulation, which serve to protect the asylum seeker in a Dublin transfer, the individual subject to a Dublin transfer decision must be seen to have a subjective right to a personal interview. Before such an interview, which must take into account the subjective perspective of the individual, has been conducted in a manner which meets the criteria of Article 5 of Dublin III, the authorities cannot conclude that no obstructions to the removal are present. 

The case focused on, among other things (consideration of documentation & country of origin information), the crucial issue of the duty of the State to provide appropriate and competent interpreters during the asylum process. Quashing the RAT (Refugee Appeals Tribunal)decision in this case, Faherty J ruled that she was not satisfied that the RAT had done its utmost, as required by law, to procure a Kurdish-Badini interpreter, and that the Court has to countenance the possibility that an error in interpretation could account for the perceived discrepancies in the applicant’s oral evidence.

This case concerns the use of s. 13(6) findings under the Refugee Act as amended and the issues surrounding depriving an applicant of an oral hearing on the basis of their delay in claiming asylum. The Court rules that the Minister has discretion to apply s.13(6) but it must be proportionate and reasonable. 

The provisions of the Asylum Procedures Directive have been fully transposed into the CESEDA. A decision of the OFPRA based on all the documents/ evidence submitted by the applicant in support of his subsequent application without an interview does not infringe Article 41(2) of the Charter. When OFPRA considered the subsequent application, it was legitimate for it to have rejected the application without any interview since the new documents/ evidence provided were without merits. The Court found that M.A’s application must be rejected without any need to re-examine the facts he submitted, including those in his first application. The application of M.A was rejected.

The Court examined the complaints of a Somali national concerning her detention conditions in Malta (Article 3), which deteriorated her mental health and resulted in inhuman and degrading treatment.  She further alleged that her detention was in breach of Article 5 § 1, 2 and 4 (Right to liberty and security).