Case summaries

  • My search
  • Keywords
    1
Reset
Slovakia - Migration Office, 18 January 2011, M.S.A. v. Ministry of the Interior of the Slovak Republic – 1Sža/102/2010
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

In the opinion of the appeal court, the fact that the defendant disregarded the documents submitted by the applicant in support of his request for an application of Article 3(2) of the Dublin Regulation, and omitted to present an argument in the decision as to why it had not upheld the application, fails to satisfy the requirements of the generally accepted legal principles of administrative procedure, because the outcomes of these actions were not assessed and justified in the decision.

Date of decision: 18-01-2011
France - Council of State, 11 November 2010, Ministry of Immigration vs. Mr. K., n°344286
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

The lack of measures provided by law ensuring decent material reception conditions to asylum seekers can constitute a serious and manifestly illegal infringement of the right of asylum. The assessment of the serious and manifestly illegal nature of such an infringement must take into account the means which are at the disposal of the relevant administrative authority.

Date of decision: 19-11-2010
Austria - Constitutional Court, 7 October 2010, U694/10
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

The Constitutional Court allowed an appeal against a decision to expel a single mother and her three minor children to Greece. It is necessary that Greece ensure appropriate accommodation will be provided for vulnerable persons in each case. The applicants are vulnerable persons and the lack of assurance from Greece, therefore, gave rise to a real risk of a violation of Art 3 ECHR.

Date of decision: 07-10-2010
Netherlands - ABRvS, 22 september 2010, 200906855/1/V1
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

In the event of an exclusion order, the Reception Conditions Directive (2003/9/EC) does not apply.

Date of decision: 22-09-2010
France - Administrative Tribunal, 29 July 2010, Mr.A., No 1013868/9-1
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

The French authorities shall use the sovereignty clause in the Dublin Regulation, under the judge’s supervision, when the rules that determine responsibility of a member state for the asylum procedure may infringe on international and national rights guaranteed to refugees and applicants for asylum. In this case a transfer order to Hungary, where the applicant had on two occasions been detained in unsuitable conditions, was held to be an unlawful infringement of the applicant’s right to asylum.

Date of decision: 29-07-2010
France - Council of State, 16 June 2010, Ms. A., n°340250

French legislative provisions concerning the non suspensive effect of the judicial remedy under the accelerated procedure are not manifestly incompatible with the Asylum Procedures Directive and the Reception Conditions Directives.  

Date of decision: 16-06-2010
France – Council of State, 11 January 2010, Mr. & Mme. A. v Prefect of Pyrénées-Orientales, No 335277
Country of applicant: Russia (Chechnya)

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.

Date of decision: 11-01-2010
ECtHR - Tabesh v. Greece, Application no. 8256/07, 26 November 2009
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

This case related to the conditions of detention at the Thessaloniki Aliens’ Police Directorate in Greece, the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention pending deportation and whether there was had been an effective judicial remedy to challenge his detention.

The Court found that there was a violation of Article 3 as the conditions at the detention centre were inhuman and degrading. The length of his detention violated Article 5(1) as it exceeded the time considered reasonable for the purpose of carrying out his deportation, given the Greek authorities lack of diligence. Domestic law in Greece was incompatible with the safeguards provided for in Article 5(4). 

Date of decision: 26-11-2009
France – Council of State, 2 November 2009, Minister of Immigration v Mrs. A., No 332890
Country of applicant: Eritrea

The scope of the Reception Conditions Directive can be limited in relation to asylum applicants that do not respect their obligation to  prove their identity in order to enable the national authorities to verify whether any prior applications had been made. In this case, the Reception Conditions Directive was set aside following noncompliance with Art 18(1) EURODAC Regulation, which requires all asylum applicants above the age of 14 to agree to have their fingerprints recorded.

Date of decision: 02-11-2009
France – Council of State, 20 October 2009, Mr. & Mrs. A, No 332631
Country of applicant: Georgia

In this case the Council of State had to determine whether the Reception Conditions Directive continues to apply to asylum applicants that are subject to procedures under the Dublin Regulation. The Council found Member States are bound by the obligations in the Directive until the handling of the applicant’s case or the transfer to the Responsible Member State is enforced.

Date of decision: 20-10-2009