Case summaries

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). 

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.

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.

This case concerned fear of persecution for reasons of race and membership of a particular social group. The provisions of Article 1(4) of Presidential Decree 61/1999, which should be interpreted with reference to Articles 3 and 22 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, recognize the special circumstances of asylum applications submitted by unaccompanied minors, for whom special procedural guarantees have been established.  When examining asylum applications submitted by unaccompanied minors one must consider the Applicants' maturity and level of mental development; take into account the fact that they may have a limited knowledge of the prevailing situation in their country; and also bear in mind that their ways of expressing their fears may differ from those of adults. Particular emphasis is given to the existence of objective factors, based on which one can assess the existence of a well-founded fear that unaccompanied minors may be persecuted in their own country. The contested decision is annulled for insufficient reasoning because there is no evidence in the file that the Administration took care to ensure that a special temporary representative was appointed for the unaccompanied minor, and there is no reference in the report to there having been an oral assessment to determine the level of his mental maturity. 

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

The case addressed the absence of procedural guarantees in the context of appointing a Commissioner and assessing the applicant’s level of maturity with regard to the need for special treatment of an unaccompanied minor.

The lack of personal persecution of an alien applicant does not preclude the recognition of refugee status if it is shown that there is an objective and well-founded fear of individual persecution in the applicant's country.

The Court found that the decision of the Minister for Public Order was improperly reasoned in that itfailed to comply with the Administration's obligations to take into account the particular circumstances of the case, to consider the merits of the applicant's claims based on objective evidence, to conform with procedural guarantees when assessing applications by unaccompanied minors, and to interpret the applicant's claims within the true intended meaning of the words used. It found that the Administration had failed to investigate the applicant's risk of persecution on the grounds of his racial origins and membership of (participation in) a particular social group (young male Hazara) in view of the prevailing conditions in his country.  The contested decision was also defective because of a failure to examine the existence of conditions for protection on humanitarian grounds.  

A judge considering an appeal against removal on Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) grounds had a duty to examine reception facilities in a child’s country of origin.

Failure to receive basic services does not represent a reduction within the meaning of Art 16 Reception Conditions Directive. The Reception Conditions Directive does not standardise decision deadlines with regard to applications for the granting of basic services.

A decision to expel an applicant with post-traumatic stress disorder to Poland did not violate Art 3 ECHR. The Member States guarantee, in accordance with Art 15 of the Reception Conditions Directive, to provide asylum applicants with the necessary medical treatment. Only in very exceptional cases does an expulsion violate Art 3 ECHR, even less frequently in cases of expulsions under the Dublin II regulation.

The House of Lords considered whether refusal or deprivation of state support to destitute asylum applicants, who were by law prohibited from working, was sufficiently severe as to engage Art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).