Case summaries
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.
The Court submitted a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union on the requirement of an automatic suspension of the execution of a negative decision on applications for international protection under EU law.
Requests for family reunification must be examined even if the third-country national, who is a family member of an EU citizen who has never exercised his right of freedom of movement, is subject to an entry ban. Whether there is a relationship of dependency between the third-country national and the EU citizen and whether public policy grounds justify the entry ban must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
UK Court of Appeal rules on the correct test to use when making a decision on cessation of refugee status.
The fact that a person has been the subject, in the past, of a decision excluding him from refugee status cannot automatically permit the finding that the mere presence of that person in the territory of the host Member State constitutes a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society. A case-by-case assessment is necessary before a measure based on grounds of public policy or public security is adopted. This assessment includes weighing the threat against the protection of the rights of EU citizens and their family members.
Similarly, in order to adopt an expulsion decision with due regard to the principle of proportionality, account must be taken of, inter alia, the nature and gravity of the alleged conduct of the individual concerned, the duration and, when appropriate, the legality of his residence in the host Member State, the period of time that has elapsed since that conduct, the individual’s behaviour during that period, the extent to which he currently poses a danger to society, and the solidity of social, cultural and family links with the host Member State.
The restriction of the right to reside in a country may entail a violation of Article 8 ECHR, when creating disproportionate effects on the individuals’ private life. States should provide effective and accessible means to protect the right to respect for private and family life.
The fact that a person cannot be repatriated under Article 3 of the ECHR does not imply that that person should be granted a leave to reside in the host country by way of subsidiary protection under Directive 2004/83. The person concerned is eligible for subsidiary protection only if there is a real risk of him being intentionally deprived, in his country of origin, of appropriate health care.