Case summaries

The applicant requested international protection in Spain on 3rd November 2014, having been assaulted in his country of origin because of his sexual orientation. His partner died as a result of the assault. On the 26th October 2015, the Trial Chamber denied his request, stating that the allegations put forward by the applicant were “improbable or insufficient.”

On 18th July 2016, the applicant appealed this decision on two different grounds of appeal. First, on the grounds of an error when applying the relevant procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, mistaking the phase of admission for the phase of concession. And second, on the grounds that the Chamber’s interpretation of the evidence provided was restrictive.

The Chamber granted the appeal against the decision made on 26th October 2015 and this decision was ruled null and void.

 The transfer of “extra vulnerable” asylum seekers from the Netherlands to Italy is contrary to article 3 ECHR.

This case examines whether, for a subsequent application, internal review followed by Judicial Review is an effective remedy, as provided by Article 39 of the Council Directive 2005/85/EC (“the Asylum Procedures Directive”).

The applicant appealed against a deportation order on account of the high risk that he faced of being subject to treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR in the case of return to Russia.

It is unlawful to transfer an asylum applicant under the Dublin Regulation to a country, in this case Bulgaria, where the reception conditions conflict with Article 4 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

An asylum seeker who was interviewed by telephone during his detention in the waiting zone by an officer of the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) in premises which were not subject to OFPRA’s director general’s prior approval has not benefited from the appropriate procedural guarantees attached to the examination of his application.

Consequently, the Ministry of Interior’s order rejecting Mr D’s request to enter the French territory, which was taken in light of an OFPRA opinion given in such circumstances, must be annulled.

Arranging for medical or psychological examination is required, for example, when the third country national indicates that they were subject to violence, which left physical or mental signs which can be confirmed by medical or psychological examination. Not all invoked health problems will require an exam. Moreover, in subsequent proceedings this obligation is limited. The authority has no basis to arrange for such an examination when the event indicated in the subsequent application related to violence which was already subject to examination in the first asylum proceedings and was considered to not be credible.

The ECtHR found the detention of a homosexual asylum seeker in Hungary was arbitrary, in violation of Article 5(1) ECHR. In particular, the Court found that the Hungarian authorities had failed to make an individualised assessment and to take into account the applicant’s vulnerability in the detention facility based on his sexual orientation. The Court emphasised that the authorities should exercise special care when deciding on deprivation of liberty in order to avoid situations which may reproduce the plight that forced asylum seekers to flee in the first place.

The Applicants applied for asylum in Sweden, stating that they had arrived from Syria. However, investigations showed that the Applicants had entered Hungary via Serbia and applied for asylum in Hungary prior to arriving to Sweden. The Migration Court of Appeal found that the Hungarian asylum procedure and reception conditions did not contain such substantial deficiencies, that it was impossible to transfer the Applicants to Hungary in accordance with the Dublin III Regulation. However, two of the Applicants were small children, and had the Applicants been transferred to Hungary there was an imminent risk of lengthy waiting periods and a long period in custody before the Applicants could have their applications examined, which would have a considerable negative effect on the children’s health and development. Therefore, according to the Migration Court of Appeal a transfer of the Applicants under the circumstances was not consistent with the principle of the best interests of the children. With rejection of the Migration Agency’s complaint, the Applicants’ asylum applications were to be examined in Sweden.