Case summaries

Section 62 subsection 3 first sentence No. 5 of the German Act of the Residence, Economic Activity and Integration of Foreigners in the Federal Territory (Residence Act) does not comply with the requirements in Art. 2(n) Dublin III Regulation No 604/2013 which defines ‘risk of absconding’ as the existence of reasons in an individual case, which are based on objective criteria defined by law. Section 62 subsection 3 first sentence No. 5 of the Residence Act names ‘risk of absconding’ as a reason for detention but lacks the required objective criteria to determine the existence of the ‘risk of absconding’. Therefore according to the current legal situation in Germany detention in order to ensure the transfer as per Art. 28 Dublin III Regulation No 604/2013 cannot be based on the detention reason ‘risk of absconding’.

The detention reasons named in Section 62 subsection 3 first sentence No. 2 and No. 3 of the Residence Act comply with the requirements in Art. 2(n) Dublin III Regulation No 604/2013. Detention in order to ensure the transfer as per Art. 28 Dublin III Regulation No 604/2013 can be based on these provisions.

A violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants’ detention conditions in the Thessaloniki department for illegal immigration pending removal. 

ECtHR majority rules that the temporary return of a homosexual man from Sweden to Libya would not violate Article 3 as short term concealment of sexual orientation would be tolerable in order to reduce risk of persecution. 

The case considered an application against the decision of the Secretary of State denying the Claimants a right of in-country appeal against the removal of the Claimants to Italy under the Dublin Regulation. The Claimants argued that their removal to Italy would expose them to a real risk of a breach of their rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The court found that there was no evidence to rebut the presumption that Italy would comply with its obligations under EU laws or of special vulnerability in the personal circumstances of any of the Claimants, to support the assertion that Article 3 of the ECHR would be breached by the Claimants’ removal to Italy. 

In the case of the Nigerian asylum-seeker, the Court found the objection of the OIN unfounded, repealed its decision and ordered the OIN to conduct a new procedure.

The Court emphasised that the contradictions which were encountered by the OIN were irrelevant regarding the applicant’s flight testimony, therefore the applicant can be considered credible.

Extradition from Belgium to Russia will not violate Article 3 of the Convention provided the applicant will be detained in a Convention-compliant institution in Russia and sufficient diplomatic assurances are provided by the Russian authorities.

The case concerns the interpretation of Directive 2004/83 and clarifies that the Irish legislation requiring seekers of international protection to follow two separate procedural stages: application for refugee status, and in case of refusal, application for subsidiary protection, is not contrary to EU law if the two applications can be introduced at the same time and if the application for subsidiary protection is considered within a reasonable period of time.

The right to good administration includes the right of any person to have his or her affairs handled impartially and within a reasonable period of time.

The applicant’s transfer from Austria to Greece in April 2009 under the Dublin Regulation did not violate Article 3 of the Convention.

After an initial refusal, for the re-examination of an asylum application to be admissible:

either, new facts must have arisen since the first decision; or, facts existed prior to the first decision but were rightfully unknown to the Applicant at the time of the first decision, and;

the aforementioned facts are capable of establishing grounds for a re-examination of the case.

The proceedings before the Slovak Regional Court in respect of judicial review of the applicant’s detention had been incompatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court).