Case summaries
With this judgment, the General Assembly of CALL is trying to bring its case law in line with the M.S.S. judgment of the ECtHR.
The CALL set the conditions under which an appeal for suspension against an enforceable decision (an order to leave the territory) has automatic suspensive effect.
After a prima facie examination (in extreme urgency), the CALL decided that the applicant in this casehas a reasonable ground of appeal on the basis of Article 3 of the ECHR, as he gave sufficient indications of the concrete problems he was experiencing in Poland. The CALL derived from this a duty of investigation on the part of the Aliens Office. This was sufficient for the CALL, furthermore, to provisionally suspend enforcement of an agreement with Poland to take back the applicant, pending the processing of an appeal for revocation.
According to the Supreme Court, the Defendant failed to provide the Plaintiff with the basic procedural guarantees that are guaranteed to an applicant for international protection in the safe third country procedure as stipulated by the International Protection Act (ZMZ), as well as the Procedures Directive. Neither the reasoning in the contested act nor any other data in the case files show that the Plaintiff was given the opportunity to argue that the Republic of Croatia is not a safe third country for him before the decision to reject his application was issued.
Whenthe Defendant handed over the Plaintiff to the Republic of Croatia without waiting for the decision as regards the Plaintiff's appeal and application for an interim injunction, the Defendant violated the Plaintiff's constitutional right to effective judicial protection and legal remedy as stipulated in articles 23 and 25 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia.
This decision from the High National Court requested the Ministry of Interior to suspend the expulsion of Saharan citizens who lodged an appeal against the rejection of their asylum application. In the appeal, they submitted a precautionary (temporary) measure asking for the suspensive effect of the previous decision which would have resulted in their expulsion from Spanish territory.
A residence permit granted on the grounds of subsidiary protection and an aliens passport granted under the previous Aliens Act (378/1991)31 § to a Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) national and his family members could not be withdrawn when the family moved from Finland without a prior inquiry into whether or not there were existing grounds for withdrawing the need for subsidiary protection in accordance with the Aliens Act (301/2004) 107 § 2nd clause.
This was an appeal against the decision to transfer an asylum applicant to Poland. The Council of State rejected the applicant’s claim that he was not informed about the Dublin procedure in a language intelligible to him, as the applicant had indicated he understood Russian and an interpreter had been provided. Moreover, the circumstances necessary to apply Art 3(2) Dublin Regulation had not been met.
This judgment overturned the decision of the Polish Refugee Board on revocation of refugee status. Adoption of state protection within the meaning of the law means that a foreigner benefits from the protection of the state of his nationality, that he is able to avail himself of this protection and that there exists no well-founded fear of persecution. Adoption of state protection means that the foreigner enjoys the genuine protection of his country of origin.
In proceedings on revocation of refugee status, the authority determines whether there are other reasons to justify the foreigner’s fear of persecution.
This case concerned the disproportionate delay in processing the applicant’s claim for asylum on appeal. The applicant was informed that it would take eighteen months for his case to be heard. He lodged an appeal before the Constitutional Court (as a last resort) claiming the right to due process constitutionally guaranteed under Art 24.2 of the Spanish Constitution to enjoy legal process without undue delay.
The transposition of the Asylum Procedures Directive (APD) in French legislation is incomplete on certain aspects (provision of information to applicants for asylum; access to the report of the personal interview under the border procedure) and complete on other aspects.
Art 17.4 of the Asylum Procedures Directive guarantees certain rights for minor applicants. This case confirmed that these rights should be known to those involved, so that the rights can be invoked before the court. Further it was confirmed that Art 3:2 of the General Administrative Law Act does not meet this requirement.