Case summaries

The Voivodeship Administrative Court found that the conflict in Ukraine is not an armed conflict as defined in the provisions  relating to the grant of subsidiary protection. Even if the applicant was attacked by some persons he did not know, his obligation was to seek assistance in his country of origin, even if obtaining assistance would seem illusory and not realistic.

Granting refugee status is not justified by the living conditions or economic situation of the applicant, but only by the existing fear of persecutions in the country of origin. The state and regional authorities help internally displaced persons (IDPs) in organizing a new life undertake all efforts to ensure housing and assistance to IDPs from the southern and eastern part of the country in western and central Ukraine

This case concerns the use of s. 13(6) findings under the Refugee Act as amended and the issues surrounding depriving an applicant of an oral hearing on the basis of their delay in claiming asylum. The Court rules that the Minister has discretion to apply s.13(6) but it must be proportionate and reasonable. 

The case examines the risk to an Iranian national if expelled to Iran in light of his political activities against the country’s regime. The Court confirmed that such a return would give rise to a violation of Article 3 ECHR and whilst finding an Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 3 violation as admissible it raised no separate issue in the case.

This CJEU ruling concerned the interpretation of Article 6 of Directive 2008/115/EC (‘the Return Directive’) in relation to the right to be heard prior to a return decision being made, to return illegally staying third-country nationals.

It was found that where the national authority had explicitly provided for the obligation to leave national territory in cases of illegal stay in its national legislation and the third-country national had properly been heard in the context of the procedure for examining his/her right to stay; the right to be heard did not require the applicant to be given an additional opportunity to present observations prior to the issue of a return decision. 

This case examined the compatibility of the Dublin II Regulation with the European Convention on Human Rights regarding transfers to Italy under the Dublin II Regulation.

The Court found a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights if the Swiss authorities were to send an Afghan couple and their six children back to Italy under the Dublin Regulation without having first obtained individual guarantees from the Italian authorities that the applicants would be taken charge of in a manner adapted to the age of the children and that the family would be kept together.

The case examines allegations of the indiscriminate expulsion of foreign nationals from Italy to Greece who had no access to asylum procedures and who subsequently feared deportation to their countries of origin. In regards to four of the applicants, the Court held that Greece violated Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or regarding treatment).  It also held that Italy violated Articles 13 and 3 as well as Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens.)

The European Court of Human Rights has held Turkey to be in violation of the applicant’s right to liberty as well as material reception conditions during his detention in Kumkapı Removal Centre. The Court further held that the applicant had not benefited from an effective remedy by which to complain of the detention conditions.

The possibility of submitting evidence for assessment is a basic procedural guarantee. Thus, if the party’s argumentation is based on defined circumstances, essential for his/her case, the responsible authority should hear witnesses and get acquainted with the evidence gathered within asylum proceedings handled by relevant authorities in another EU Member State.  

The Court ruled that under national law the authorities are obliged to issue a decision on discontinuing the procedure if another Member State is responsible for the application. The provision leaves no margin of discretion. The authorities had no obligation to examine the way that the other State treats asylum seekers, if it is a Member State of the EU and applies European standards of dealing with third country nationals.

In the situation where the other State decided to accept the responsibility and examine the application, it should be understood that they examined its admissibility in the light of the Dublin II Regulation, taking into account the time that the applicant spent away from that State. 

The Council of State denied the Applicants’ appeal against the decision made by the Board of the Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) to include Georgia and the Republic of Albania in the list of safe countries of origin because, amongst other things, these countries are democratic institutions and are parties to the ECHR.

The Council of State granted the Applicants’ appeal against the decision made by the Board of OFPRA to include the Republic of Kosovo in the list of safe countries of origin because, amongst other things, the country’s political and social contexts were unstable and some segments of the population were subject to violence without sufficient police protection.