Case summaries

In this case, the Austrian Asylum Court held the decision of the Federal Asylum Office not to grant refugee status to the applicant’s child was a violation of Austrian asylum law since the child’s father had been granted refugee status. The Court also held a separation of the newborn child from its mother violates Art 8 ECHR and, therefore, the applicant’s asylum application has to be admitted to the procedure on the merits.

This case concerned whether the provisions of the Reception Conditions Directive apply to subsequent asylum applications (fresh claims) as with initial claims for asylum. It was confirmed that that the provisions do apply. 

In a decision on whether the return of an unaccompanied minor to Hungary under the Dublin Regulation is unlawful in light of Art. 3 ECHR and therefore the sovereignty clause should be used, Art. 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union(CFRU – best interest of the child as a primary consideration for authorities) is significant.

The current situation in the province of Kabul cannot be seen as a situation of indiscriminate generalised violence, within the meaning of Article L.712-1 c) of Ceseda [which transposes Article 15 (c) of the Qualification Directive].

The European Court of Human Rights held that there was a violation of Article 3 of the Convention with regards to the applicant’s living conditions in the detention centre of Samos and the authorities’ lack of diligence to provide him with the appropriate medical assistance. Furthermore, it found a violation of Article 5 para 1 and 4 regarding the lawfulness of his detention and his right to liberty.

The CALL ruled that the Qualification Directive, with reference to the grounds for revocation, clearly shows a difference between the various types of protection and that there is no indication that the Belgian legislator wished to deviate from this. Subsidiary protection can be revoked on the basis of a “serious crime” committed after protection was granted.

The High Administrative Court wrongly found that returnees without a family network generally could not return to Kabul as an internal protection alternative. The High Administrative Court was obliged to examine whether the applicant was the owner of property which might enable him to safeguard his means of existence upon return.

Bidoons in Kuwait are not issued with ID documents and are denied work, school and medical care. Despite the quality of the documents the applicant submitted he was considered to have established his affiliation as an unregistered Bidoon. The Court found that he had a well-founded fear of being subjected to further persecution as an unregistered Bidoon and that he qualified for refugee status. He was granted permanent residence as a refugee.

The case involves consideration by the Supreme Court of Ireland of whether or not the Minister for Justice has a discretion to consider an application for subsidiary protection from a person who has a deportation order made prior to the 20.10.2006, the date on which the law transposing the Qualification Directive came in to effect in Ireland. The Court overturned a decision of the High Court and stated that the Minister for Justice does not have discretion to consider an application for subsidiary protection from a person with a deportation order prior to the 20.10.2006.

The court confirmed in this case that the assessment framework of Art 4:6 of the General Administrative Law Act, in relation to subsequent asylum applications, is in conformity with the Asylum Procedures Directive.