Case summaries
Courts must establish the current situation of the region from which the complainant originates or which can be considered as an internal flight alternative and relate it to the individual situation of the complainant in the grounds of the decision.
In the case of a Sunni Iraqi, the lower instance court did not sufficiently consider the complainant’s region of origin, the possibility of return to that region or the possibility of internal flight. Thereby the court violated the right to equal treatment among foreigners.
The complainant, a Somali Citizen and a Sufi Muslim from Jaameel Sheen, Hiiraan Region, Somalia, had been detained and tortured by al-Shabaab due to teaching English.
Based on a consistent account in accordance with a medico-legal report from a torture investigation and country of origin information the Board found the applicant profiled in relation to al-Shabaab.
The applicant was granted subsidiary protection under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (2).
The Constitutional Council decides on the constitutionality of the deadline to appeal against a return order, as applicable to a third-country national being detained, under paragraph 4 of Article L. 512-1 of the Code of Entry and Stay of Foreigners and the Right to Asylum (CESEDA). The Council decides hereby that the deadline proves to be too short- consequently unconstitutional- to effectively exercise the right to remedy in the context of detention.
Article 26(1) of the Dublin III Regulation precludes the issuance of a transfer decision by the determining Member-State until the requested Member-State implicitly or explicitly accepts the take charge/back request.
Article 26(1) of the Dublin III Regulation precludes the issuance of a transfer decision by the determining Member-State until the requested Member-State implicitly or explicitly accepts the take charge/back request.
The request submitted by the Italian authorities to Norway to take back the applicant would imply his immediate repatriation to his country of origin, Afghanistan, which, in the light of the Court’s reasoning, is not to be considered a safe country.
The complainant, an Ethnic Maktumin Stateless Kurd from Amuda, Al-Hasakah, Syria, was granted temporary protection under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (3).
On 31 August 2017 the complainant lodged a complaint claiming refugee status under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (1) or alternatively subsidiary protection under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (2).
The Board found that the complainant fulfilled the conditions for subsidiary protection under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (2) as he would risk participating in acts of war during the compulsory military service.
The refusal to grant residence permit and the subsequent return order were issued without a hearing. Although a hearing in administrative procedures initiated by the applicant is not always required, the Court found that the hearing would have led to a well-rounded and more substantial review of his right to remain under a different type of residence permit, as well as any factors precluding his return.
The Court ruled that, even where national security was at stake, deportation measures should be subject to some form of adversarial proceedings before an independent authority or court. In this case, the Macedonian courts failed to scrutinise whether an expulsion order was issued on genuine national security grounds, violating Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention.
Church asylum does not extend the time limit of a Dublin transfer.