Case summaries

Application for annulment of a decision by the Minister of Public Order 

The case concerned deportation of a recognized refugee (Articles 32 and 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees) after a conviction for a criminal offence under common law. Final conviction for a particularly serious crime is not sufficient legitimate justification for an act of deportation.; instead, the Administration is required to issue a specific ruling that the convicted refugee, given the circumstances under which he committed the offence and his personality, is thereafter a risk to the community as a whole to such an extent that his stay in Greece is no longer tolerable and that his immediate removal from the country is required.

A threat to the legal interests of public order does not constitute a reason to revoke refugee status as this is not explicitly referred to in the reasons for terminating refugee status in accordance with Article 1C of the 1951 Convention. Furthermore, it falls within the competence of the Council of State to annul a ruling, issued by relying on Articles 32 and 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, which involves the deportation of an alien who has been recognized as having refugee status under the said international Convention and who continues to have refugee status.

The case also considered the lack of competence of the body which issued the contested decision (General Secretary of the Ministry of Public Order instead of the competent Minister for Public Order). 

The seven day detention of a ‘temporarily admitted’ asylum seeker under the fast-track procedure was non-arbitrary and consistent with Article 5(1), but the 76 hour delay in providing the individual with the real reasons for his detention did not satisfy the promptness requirement of Article 5(2).

The applicant lodged an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the decision issued by the High National Court refusing refugee status. The applicant challenged the decision on the grounds that the right to legal assistance, representation and to the assistance of an interpreter had been violated.

Application for annulment of a decision by the Minister of Public Order

This case concerned the interpretation of Presidential Decree 61/1999 in light of Directive 2004/83/EC andexamined the reasoning of the Administration's decision in an application for recognition as a refugee, in an appeal for annulment. The minutes of the Advisory Committee should cite not only the interested party's claims but also the content of the questions put by members of the Committee and the alien's responses, as well as a detailed assessment of the claims and of any documentation or other evidence which may have been submitted. There is an obligation on the members of the Committee to deliver a reasoned judgment on the credibility of the asylum seeker. 

This case examines the differences between the procedure for examining a claim for asylum and the procedure for examining the application of exclusion clauses.

The asylum procedure is a specific procedure as the applicants do not have knowledge of the Czech language. If an applicant submits documents in a language other than Czech it must be considered if it is the applicant or the Ministry of Interior who is responsible for providing a translation.

The case concerns access to a remedy with suspensive effect by an asylum seeker, who claimed asylum at the French border, against a potential removal from France to a country where there is real reason to believe he would face the risk of being subjected to ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR.

Within the meaning of the provisions of Article 2(1) and Article 3 para. 1, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of Presidential Decree 61/1999, for an appeal brought against an initial negative decision to be rejected for being out of time, there is no requirement for there to have been a prior judgment by the Committee formed under Article 3(5) which – as is clear from the regulations concerning its composition and operation – is responsible for considering the substantive conditions for recognising refugee status to a foreigner.

The court overturned a previous judgment which had held that a policy of refusing to tape record substantive asylum interviews was legal.

The case involved two Uzbek nationals who were extradited to Uzbekistan by Turkey after Uzbekistan claimed they had committed terror-related crimes, while the applicants countered that they were political dissidents and would face ill-treatment and torture if returned. Despite the Court ordering interim measures to defer, Turkey extradited both and they were sentenced to terms of imprisonment. The Court found no violations of Art. 2, 3, or 6, but did find a violation of Art. 34 for Turkey’s non-compliance with the interim measures.