Case summaries

The Court found that there had been a violation of Article 3 in relation to detention conditions at Tychero. There was no violation of Article 5(1) insofar as the detention was not arbitrary and was in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law, but there was a violation of Article 5(4) in relation to the ineffectiveness of the judicial review of detention conditions. Further, there was a violation of Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 3, because the Greek authorities had deported the Applicant to Turkey, without verifying whether his asylum claim was still pending. 

A subsequent application is not admissible unless the interested party presents new facts or elements relating to his personnel situation or to the situation in his country of origin, out of which he could not have had knowledge of previously, and likely, if they have probative value, to modify the appreciation of the legitimacy or the credibility of the application of the interested party.

The director general of OFPRA was right to find that the elements that the applicants presented before him did not significantly increase the probability that they would meet the qualifying conditions to claim protection and that their subsequent applications were inadmissible, without having undertaken a hearing before making the decision on inadmissibility.

The Applicants asked the Administrative Tribunal of Lille (the “Tribunal”) to order the relevant authorities to take urgent interim relief measures to guarantee the fundamental freedoms of the population of the Calais camp.

The Administrative Judge  acceded to several of the applicants’ demands (identification of vulnerable minors, hygiene, cleanliness, emergency vehicle access) and held that the situation in the Calais camp constituted a grave and blatantly illegal breach of the right of the persons residing there not to be subjected to degrading and inhuman treatment.

The Supreme Court considered the appellant’s appeal against the decision by the defendant Secretary of State, by which his application for a Tier 4 student visa had been rejected, on the ground that the applicant had only provided bank statements covering 22 out of the required 28 days. The court held that the refusal of the appellant’s application was unlawful because according to the process instruction the UK Border Agency should not have rejected his application without previously giving the appellant the opportunity to repair the deficit in his evidence. 

The Dublin regulations do not allow for priority to be given to the processing of different types of transfer applications. In particular, there is no priority which favours a transfer application made on the Applicant’s own initiative as compared to one which is ordered by administrative compulsion. In deciding the application, the executing authority must allow the Applicant to transfer without administrative compulsion if it appears certain that (i) the Applicant will voluntarily travel to the Member State responsible for reviewing his application and, (ii) will report in a timely manner to the responsible authority. A transfer without administrative compulsion is not a deportation (Abschiebung), and therefore does not result in a statutory ban on entry and residence under Sec. 11 of the Residence Act (Aufenthaltsgesetz).

The appeal against the transfer of an asylum seeker from Germany to Hungary in the accelerated Dublin procedure is granted and suspensive effect applied to the decision. The applicant may face a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment because of systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and reception conditions in Hungary following the entry into force of new Hungarian laws on 1 August 2015, and because of the risk of further removal to Serbia.

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s judgment in reaffirming that the procedural rules governing an appeal against a negative decision on asylum conducted under the Detained Fast Track (DFT) system are ultra vires and thus unlawful.

This Case examines the refusal to grant refugee status to a Nepalese national. The Tribunal failed to provide clear, cogent reasoning for the decision. Documentation and explanations provided by the Applicant were not included in the decision. Unreasonable assumptions were made by the Tribunal including: as the Applicant’s wife, children and brother were safely residing in the country of origin, this inferred that the Applicant could do the same; since the applicant spent 6 years living safely in India, he could continue to live there safely. The High Court criticised the procedural approach by the Tribunal and the lack of coherent reasoning provided. The High Court granted leave and quashed the Tribunal’s decision.

In this case, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) analysed:

1) whether the conditions that the applicant faced when he was detained in Latvia violated Article 5(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR); and

2) whether the appellate proceedings violated Article 5(4) of the ECHR. 

Although the ECtHR held that the conditions in Latvia’s detention centre complied with Article 5(1) and that the appellate courts provided an effective review of the applicant’s detention under Article 5(4), the ECtHR nevertheless found that the appellate proceedings failed to provide the applicant with a speedy decision under Article 5(4). 

The Administrative Court judged that a full and rigorous examination of the consequences of transferring the applicant back to Italy is required, given the delicate and evolving situation in the country. As this was not done the prefecture’s decision to refuse to examine the asylum application and send her back to Italy was annulled. The case was remitted to the prefecture for re-examination.