Case summaries

An Article 3 compliant assessment requires a full and ex nunc evaluation of a claim.  Where the State is made aware of facts that could expose an applicant to an individual risk of ill-treatment, regardless of whether the applicant chooses to rely on such facts, it is obliged to assess this risk ex proprio motu. 

An applicant from Kosovo claimed persecution due to his homosexuality. His application was rejected. The Administrative Court dismissed the action, but the Supreme court annulled the judgement and returned the case to the new procedure. An act of persecution does not depend on the applicant reporting persecution (in this case rape) to the police of their country of origin. 

The applicants, a stateless Palestinian from Syria and two Syrian nationals, had been ordered to be expelled to Syria by the Russian authorities, and were detained in a detention centre in Russia pending this. The Court found that their expulsion to Syria would breach Articles 2 and 3, that Articles 5(4) and 5(1)(f) had been violated with regards to their detention, and that the restrictions on their contact with their representatives had breached Article 34.

In this case, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) revisited the conditions of Mogadishu, Somalia as it relates to an alleged violation of Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).

In the specific case, the ECtHR held that:

1) While the general conditions of Mogadisuh remain serious and fragile, objective reports support the finding that such conditions are not sufficient to find a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR; and

2) While the ECtHR acknowledged that the applicant in the present case faces a different threat as a woman and that several objective reports described the serious and widespread sexual and gender-based violence in the country, the Court was concerned with the applicant’s credibility.

An Applicant with Syrian citizenship applied for asylum in Sweden. The Migration Court of Appeal found that (i) Armenia was considered a safe third country, and (ii) that the Applicant had such a connection to Armenia that it was reasonable for the Applicant to go there, given that the Applicant’s mother was from Armenia, Armenian was the Applicant’s native language, the Applicant was born and spent his first years in Armenia, and the Applicant had voluntarily returned to Armenia as an adult to study. The Applicant’s asylum application was rejected.

The applicant, an Iranian national, had fled Iran in light of the risks he faced there as a political dissident, and had been detained in Greece with a view to being expelled to Iran. The Court held that the Greek authorities had violated Articles 3 concerning his conditions of detention, 3 and 13 combined because of the lack of an effective remedy to complain about these conditions, the failings of the asylum procedure and the risk of being sent back to Iran, and 5(4) with respect to the inefficient judicial review of the detention.

The operation of an effective legal system for the detection, prosecution and punishment of acts constituting persecution or serious harm and access to such system by the claimant may not, in a given case, amount to protection. Article 7(2) of the Qualfication Directive is non-prescriptive in nature. The duty imposed on states to take “reasonable steps” imports the concepts of margin of appreciation and proportionality.

The Appellant appealed to the Upper Tribunal on the ground that he qualified for subsidiary protection under Article 2(e) and (f) of the Qualification Directive and was therefore entitled to a residence permit under Article 24(2) of the Qualification Directive.

In dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal found that: (a) Article 24 of the Qualification Directive does not confer a substantive right of residence in the member state concerned but rather its function is to determine the modalities whereby a right of residence otherwise existing is to be documented, and (b) the Procedures Directive is a truly adjectival instrument of EU legislation which does not create any substantive rights in the realm of asylum or subsidiary protection.

The Supreme Court held that the National High Court of Spain (Audiencia Nacional) erred in annulling the General Deputy Director of Asylum’s decision to reject the Appellant’s request for international protection because the National High Court of Spain failed to consider the substance of the Appellant’s request for asylum.

The Supreme Court declared that the National High Court erred when annulling the decision of the General Sub-Directorate for Asylum (Ministry of Interior) to reject the Appellant’s request for international protection. The National High Court annulled the decision but did not consider the Appellant’s core claim: the request for international protection.

As the National High Court was in possession of all necessary facts required to decide on the substance of the request by the Appellant for international protection, it should have been able to determine as such. As a result, the Supreme Court upheld the appeal.