Case summaries

No liability in damages in EU Law under Art 16(1)(b) of the Dublin Regulation arose from the failure to promptly examine an application for asylum where the United Kingdom accepted responsibility for the claim. The obligation in Art 13 of the Qualification Directive to grant refugee status to those entitled to it could not be considered a “civil right” protected by Art 6 of the ECHR in the absence of caselaw from the Strasbourg Court expressly recognising this.

No provision imposes a time limit on the determining authority within which a decision on asylum applications has to be taken. The only obligation, for which no sanction is foreseen, is to inform the applicant when a decision cannot be taken within a period of six months.

Art 3 and Art 15 Dublin Regulation are only applicable if there exist compelling reasons to believe the receiving country is incapable of welcoming asylum applicants in appropriate conditions or if the applicants can prove that they personally risk being subjected to ill treatment or not benefitting fully from an effective right to asylum. In this case, the applicants had not demonstrated they were personally victims of ill treatment in Poland. Poland was considered to offer sufficient guarantees against deportation and for an effective and impartial asylum procedure.

This case concerned the refusal of a Refugee appeal on the basis that Sate protection was available and/or that the applicant could relocate within Nigeria and avoid persecution.  In support of the finding that State was available; the Tribunal Member relied upon part of a UK Home Office Operational Guidance Note (OGN) on Nigeria that had not been provided to the applicant. The Court found that the applicant not afforded fair procedures. She had no opportunity to comment upon the information in the OGN. The Court also found that the issue of whether or not State protection is available does not depend upon the existence of a police complaints procedure but upon a determination that there exists in the country of origin as a matter of current practice, an effective system for the detection, investigation, prosecution and conviction of crimes of the kind which form the subject matter of the complaint.

If re-examination of a case under the Aliens Act Chapter 12 Section 19 (provides for re-examination of a claim on the presentation of information supporting a need for international protection) has been granted, the Migration Board cannot deny a residence permit without an oral healing having been held.

When determining whether the maximum period for detention pending removal under the Returns Directive is exceeded, the following periods must be included: (1) periods of detention prior to the application of the Directive by the Member State; (2) periods of detention pending an asylum claim where no decision is made to transfer the individual from ‘detention pending removal’ to ‘detention pending asylum claim’; (3) periods of detention pending judicial review of the deportation. In addition, the ‘reasonableness’ of the prospects of removal must take account of whether removal can take place within the maximum period of detention time, and once the maximum period is exceeded, the individual can no longer be detained for the purpose of removal.

The applicants, who had been recognised as refugees by UNHCR, faced risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 upon Turkey’s proposed  deportation of them to either Iran or Iraq. They had no effective opportunity to make an asylum claim or challenge their deportation. Further their detention had no legal justification and they had been unable to challenge its lawfulness. The Court found violations of Article 3, 13, 5(1), 5(2) and 5(4). 

This case concerned a challenge to the Tribunal’s conduct of a asylum appeal hearing (alleged pre-judging of the case against the applicant due to an argument with the applicant’s lawyer) as well as the Tribunal’s reasoning (alleged flaws in credibility analysis and failure to share investigative burden with the applicant, as required by UNHCR handbook). The challenge was unsuccessful.

This case concerned the decision of the Court as to the admissibility of the application of two Iraqi nationals who had been detained in Iraq by the British government as criminal detainees and then transferred by it to the Iraqi authorities. The Court held that the application was partly admissible. 

An intervention by the French urgent applications judge [juge des référés] on the grounds of urgency is not considered until a decision on a transfer of an asylum applicant under the Dublin Regulation has been made. In this case, the asylum applicant was not yet subject to a transfer decision and there was therefore no particular need for an urgent intervention within the 48-hour period, as provided by article L.521-2 of the French Code on Administrative Justice.