Case summaries
The decision of the Administrative Court of Düsseldorf prohibits a Dublin transfer of an asylum seeker from Germany to Greece stating that there are substantial grounds for believing that systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and reception conditions in Greece could put the applicant at risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in violation of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
The case concerns the validity of the first subparagraph of Article 8(3)(a) and (b) of the Receptions Conditions Directive in the light of Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
The reduction in the financial allowance available to child dependants of asylum seekers was not contrary to the requirement that the best interests of the child be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children.
It was unlawful to detain an unaccompanied asylum seeking child, even in the reasonable belief that he was an adult.
The application of S.C. and her minor children Z.C. and F.C. related to the cassation of an Appeal Court judgement regarding compensation for the harm they suffered as a result of an indisputably unjust decision to place the Applicants in a Guarded Detention Centre for Foreigners. The Supreme Court reversed the challenged judgement and passed the case to the Appeal Court for re-consideration.
Even where there are no substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws in the Member State responsible, a Dublin transfer can only be carried out in conditions which exclude the possibility that that transfer might result in a real and proven risk of the person concerned suffering inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 CFR EU.
If there is a real and proven risk that the state of health of an applicant who suffers from a serious mental or physical illness would significantly and permanently deteriorate, that transfer would constitute a violation of Article 4 CFR EU.
It is for the courts and authorities of the requesting Member State to eliminate any serious doubts concerning the impact of the transfer on the health of the person concerned by taking all necessary precaution. If the taking of precautions is not sufficient, it is for the authorities of the Member State concerned to suspend the execution of the transfer for as long as the applicant’s conditions render him unfit for transfer.
Member States may choose to conduct its own examination of that person’s application by making use of the “discretionary clause” laid down in Article 17(1) DRIII, but is not required to do so.
This case concerned the back dating of child benefit for families who were previously in the asylum procedure.
In this application, the associations ask the Council of State to annul, for abuse of power, the decree n°2015-1329 of 21 October 2015 on the allowance granted to asylum seekers.
This decree is here annulled by the Council of State because its article 2 doesn’t provide for a sufficient additional amount for adult asylum seekers to allow them to seek private housing when they weren’t provided with an accommodation but had accepted material reception conditions.
D.T., who possesses a leave to remain in Poland due to humanitarian considerations, appealed the Municipal Appeal Board’s decision to uphold the decision refusing to award her child benefits. Relying on a purposive interpretation of the applicable regulations regarding social welfare and the access of foreigners to the labour market, the Court decided to set aside both decisions, while stressing that the deciding body shall be bound by the legal analysis contained in the Court order.
The Court of Appeal concluded that to send a refugee who has a residence permit in Italy and an asylum seeker back to the country would not violate Article 3 ECHR.
The court further constrained the decision in Tarakhel to families with minor children.