Case summaries

Germany - Federal Administrative Court, 04 July 2019 - 1 C 45.18
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

In order to examine prohibitions of deportation, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) has to consider the case of each family member even in cases of family associations separately whether deportation prohibitions exist. In this case, the risk assessment must be based on the assumption that a nuclear family living together in the Federal Republic of Germany will return to its country of origin as a family unit. This also applies if individual family members have already been granted a protection status or if national deportation prohibitions have been established.

Date of decision: 04-07-2019
Greece - 7th Appeals Committee, 28 June 2019
Country of applicant: Venezuela

The political, humanitarian and economic crisis in Venezuela can justify subsidiary protection status if the individual’s return to the country of origin, would cause serious harm, characterized by the level of seriousness required to be considered as inhuman and degrading treatment.

Date of decision: 28-06-2019
ECtHR – Al Husin v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (No. 2) (no. 10112/16)
Country of applicant: Syria

Detention within the context of immigration must be lawful, not arbitrary and carried out in good faith. In this sense, the depriavation of liberty without a realistic prospect of removal is against the prevision of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

Date of decision: 25-06-2019
Belgium - Council for Alien Law Litigation, June 19th 2019, X. v. Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons, n° 222 826
Country of applicant: Guinea

A Guinean woman who has been forced into marriage at a young age and subsequently harassed into marrying her late husband’s brother, is a refugee under article 1, section A §2 of the Geneva Convention. She risks being persecuted by reason of her membership in the social group of women, and considering the regular violation of women’s rights occuring in Guinea.

Date of decision: 19-06-2019
ECtHR - Sh.D. and others v. Greece, Austria, Croatia, Hungary, Northern Macedonia, Serbia and Slovenia (no. 141165/16)
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

Conditions in police stations do not justify prolonged detention, while the child’s extreme vulnerability should prevail over irregular status with necessary measures adopted to protect them. Domestic authorities had not done all that could reasonably expected to fulfil their obligation in light of their vulnerability.

The authorities violated Article 5 by automatically applying the protective custody regime, without considering any alternatives to detention or the requirement under EU law to avoid the detention of children.

Date of decision: 13-06-2019
ECtHR - Sh.D. and others v. Greece, Austria, Croatia, Hungary, Northern Macedonia, Serbia and Slovenia (no. 141165/16)
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

Detention conditions in Greek police stations and living conditions in Idomeni Camp in northern Greece for five unaccompanied children were in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. A further violation was found in respect of Article 5 § 1 regarding the “protective custody” of unaccompanied children in police stations.

Date of decision: 13-06-2019
Switzerland: Federal Administrative Court (BVG), 12.06.2019, BVGE 3078/2019
Country of applicant: Syria

The State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) must carry out an individualised examination to determine whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the asylum procedure of the Member State where the applicant shall be transferred to has systemic weaknesses that would entail a risk of inhuman treatment or chain deportation.

Date of decision: 12-06-2019
Spain – Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court, 27 May 2019, Appeal No 5809/2018
Country of applicant: Unknown

The Spanish Supreme Court’s Administrative Chamber decides on the appeal of the State Attorney. He appealed the National Court’s judgement that accepted to consider an application for the re-examination of international protection that was denied in first instance, and was presented in a different place. The Supreme Court concludes that even if an application is not presented before the competent authority, are these authorities the ones who have to refer the case to the competent. Since this referral was not done, the petition for re-examination is valid.

Date of decision: 27-05-2019
AS (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, 2019
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

The Court of Appeal set aside the Upper Tribunal’s Country Guidance on internal relocation to Kabul, on the basis that it had made a factual error, wrongly stating that civilian causalities amounted to less than 0.001 per cent, rather than less than 0.1 per cent, of the population of Kabul. However, it did dismiss AS’s ground of appeal, which concerned whether internal relocation would be unreasonable.

Date of decision: 24-05-2019