Case summaries

To determine whether there is a violation of Articles 2 and 3 ECHR in the context of expulsion, the Court analyses if the Applicant has presented substantial grounds on (i) whether he faces a real risk of ill-treatment or death in the country of destination, and (ii)whether the national authorities carried out an adequate assessment of the evidence. States have an obligation to analyse the risk ex propio motu when they are aware of facts that could expose an individual to the risk of treatment prohibited by Articles 2 and 3 ECHR.  If the domestic jurisdictions didn’t carry out a proper assessment, the Court analyses the risk on its own on the basis of the parties submissions, international reports and its own findings.

States have an obligation, under Article 5 § 1 ECHR, to act with due diligence and impose a reasonable period of detention pending expulsion. Article 5 § 4 ECHR is breached if detained individuals can’t obtain a revision of their detention before a domestic court. 

The Court decides that the relevant point in time to assess the ‘minor’ status of a beneficiary of international protection under the Qualification Directive is the date on which the applicant makes an (informal) application for international protection.

The Court decides that the notion of ‘family member’ under the Qualification Directive does not require an actual resumption of family life between the parent who benefited international protection and the child. Furthermore, the rights of a family member to claim the benefits under the Qualification Directive persist after the beneficiary of subsidiary protection reaches the age of majority, for the duration of the period of validity of the residence permit granted to them.

New elements or findings which have arisen or have been presented by the applicant in subsequent applications can consist, on the one hand, of those which have arisen after the decision became final, and, on the other hand, of those which have not been presented by the applicant but have already existed during the first procedure.

Domestic provisions regarding the procedures of examining a subsequent application must be compliant with the provisions set out in the Asylum Procedures Directive and cannot foresee a limited period to file a subsequent application. Moreover, if Member States have no specific implementing provisions regarding the Asylum Procedures Directive, domestic legislation is not applicable to dismiss a subsequent application if new elements or findings already existed before the decision became final but where not presented by the applicant’s own fault.

The current case concerns the expulsion of Mr. Arif Savran “the applicant” from Denmark to his country of origin, Turkey in 2015 because of his criminal convictions in Denmark. The applicant argued that his expulsion to Turkey had been in violation of Article 3 and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights because he was suffering paranoid schizophrenia and that he was a “settled migrant”.

The Court found that expulsion of the applicant to Turkey did not violate Article 3 under the Paposhvili threshold test, because the evidence was not “capable of demonstrating that there are substantial grounds” for believing that as a “seriously ill person”, the applicant “would face a real risk… resulting intense suffering or to a significant reduction in life expectancy”.  Also, there was no evidence to show that applicant was causing harm to himself.

In relation to the violation of Article 8, the Court found that Danish authorities failed to consider the mental conditions of the applicant and the applicant expulsion to Turkey violated his “private life” under the Article 8 of the Convention.

The Court decides that the Bosnian administrative authorities unlawfully disregarded the legal provisions pursuant to which the applicant was entitled to other, similar benefits, despite the fact that she specifically invoked those provisions in her appeal. The Sarajevo Cantonal Court thus did not give the applicant’s case a fair hearing. Moreover, the applicant’s case was not remedied by the Constitutional Court.

The Court decides that the proceedings were excessive and failed to meet the ‘reasonable time’ requirement; the Bosnian Government did not put forward any fact or argument capable of justifying the length of the proceedings.

The expulsion of the applicant to Somalia was in violation of Article 8 of the Convention, because the offences committed by the applicant did not posed a threat to public order and he had not previously been warned of expulsion or had a conditional expulsion order imposed. Furthermore, the applicant also had very strong ties to Denmark and virtually no ties with Somalia. Therefore, the expulsion of Mr. Abdi, combined with a life-long ban on returning, was disproportionate.

Except for very limited exceptions, the statutory three-year waiting period for family reunification of persons granted ‘temporary protection’ does not allow for an individualised assessment of the interest of family unity in light of the concrete situation of the persons concerned. Eventually the Court finds a violation of Article 8 of the Convention since the measure (whose goal is not otherwise challenged) had a disproportionate impact in the case at hand.

The Court decides that the maximum period of detention for the purpose of removal of a person on the grounds of public policy or public security under Belgian law, according to which Union citizens and their family members are treated in the same way as third-country nationals subject to a return procedure, exceeds the principle of proportionality and thus does not comply with EU law.

Article 40(2) of the Asylum Procedures Directive does not distinguish between initial and subsequent applications for international protection. As such, Member States should not treat the assessment of evidence submitted in subsequent applications different from evidence submitted in a first application. Any document submitted by the applicant in support of his application for international protection must be considered, and the inability to authenticate that document cannot justify the exclusion of such a document from the examination.

The assessment of the existence of indiscriminate violence under Article 15 (c) of the Qualification Directive may not be based exclusively on a quantitative assessment of casualties and population ratios. A comprehensive appraisal of all the circumstances of the individual case, and in particular those which characterise the situation of the applicant’s country of origin, is required.