Case summaries

A Judge when hearing applications for interim measures may issue an injunction against the administration on the basis of Article L. 521 of the Code of Administrative Justice when the administration’s behaviour reveals a manifest disregard of any of the requirements within the right of asylum and such an action results in serious consequences for the asylum applicant, considering in particular his age, health status and family situation.

There had been a gap of more than one month between the twenty-four hour reconsideration order made by the Judge hearing applications for interim measures, and the offer of material reception conditions made by the French Office for Immigration and Integration. This was notwithstanding the fact that at the time of the injunction, the applicant was already in a situation of extreme vulnerability (with no financial resources and five dependent children). This therefore constituted a violation of the requirements within the right of asylum which was likely to have serious consequences for the asylum applicant.

The ECtHR ruled that the Greek authorities had failed in their positive obligation under Article 8 ECHR to guarantee that the applicant’s asylum request is examined within a reasonable time in order to ensure that his situation of insecurity, which impinges upon several elements of his private life, is as short-lived as possible. 

A Dublin Transfer to Italy should be prevented when the person concerned is a vulnerable person as per in Article 3 (2) Dublin III Regulation.

The Court quashed the decision of the Office of Immigration and Nationality (OIN) because it failed to carry out a proper establishment of facts as required by the Dublin III Regulation.

The applicant appeals the ruling of the Directorate-General for Domestic Policy, made on 16th February 2015, which denies leave to proceed (inadmissible) for international protection, claiming that another Member state (Poland) and not Spain is responsible for the examination of the asylum application as, on 3rd February 2015, Poland granted the applicant a visa.

The Member State before which the request for international protection is presented has the power to authorise temporary residence for the applicant, at their discretion, if the applicant is suffering from a serious illness which requires medical attention. In this case, the applicant is suffering from an illness but, according to the National Court, it is not a serious illness which requires specialised medical assistance. 

The Office of Immigration and Nationality issued a decision on the responsibility of the Republic of Bulgaria under the Dublin III Regulation, without having informed the Applicant about the applicability of the Regulation in his case. The Court quashed the decision and declared the Applicant’s right to be heard was not respected.

The purpose of the child care benefit “500 ” envisaged in the Law of 11 February 2016 is to provide assistance to parents and guardians in raising children by covering some expenses related to their needs. Excluding refugees from persons entitled to this benefit because their residence card does not contain a note “access to labour market” would lead to unfair differentiation of the legal situation of the foreigners (dividing them into those who were issued a residence card with the note “access to labour market“ and those issued a residence card without this note) and of the children (because of their origin and nationality). 

When deciding whether refugee status should be available , one must not only consider any pre-persecution but also post-flight circumstances. Judged  on a forward looking basis of persecution of political enemies within Syrian territory, upon return to Syria there continues to be a danger of individual persecution including human rights violations by reason of belonging to a certain group. 

The Administrative Chamber of the Spanish Supreme Court decides on the inadmissibility of the appeal an applicant for international protection submitted of a judgement that denied him the right of asylum and subsidiary protection.

The Supreme Court concludes there is no legal reasoning to admit the appeal, because what the National Court concluded was well-founded.

This case concerned the detention of four applicants from Ghana in Italy. The basis of the claim was a violation of Article 5(1) ECHR.