Case summaries

ECtHR - Auad v. Bulgaria, Application No. 46390/10
Country of applicant: Lebanon, Palestinian Territory

The case concerned the proposed expulsion of the Applicant to Lebanon. He argued that it would expose him to a risk of ill‑treatment or death, that he did not have an effective remedy in respect of his claim in that regard, and that his detention pending deportation had been too lengthy and unjustified.

Date of decision: 11-01-2012
Ireland - High Court, 11 January 2012, P.I., E.I. (An Infant) and J.N.I. (An Infant) v Minister for Justice and Equality, [2012] IEHC 7
Country of applicant: Unknown

This was an application for an interim injunction preventing the removal of the applicants pending the outcome of their application for leave to apply for judicial review.  The underlying leave application raised several different points, of these, one was deemed arguable: that Ireland’s deportation regime involving a lifetime ban on re-entry is contrary to the ECHR and Irish Constitution.

Date of decision: 11-01-2012
ECtHR - G.R. v Netherlands, Application No. 22251/07
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

The case concerns an Afghan national who applied for a residence permit for the purpose of residing with his

wife and children who had been granted Netherlands nationality. He complained about the refusal to exempt him from the statutory administrative charge, EUR 830, required to obtain a decision on his request for a residence permit and which he could not afford to pay. The Court examined that complaint under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).

Date of decision: 10-01-2012
Greece - Single-Member Misdemeanours Court of Igoumenitsa, 2012, Case No 682/2012
Country of applicant: Unknown

When detained under conditions that constitute the notion of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of article 3 ECHR, a person is not criminally responsible for committing the unlawful act of escaping custody.

 

Date of decision: 02-01-2012
Finland - Supreme Administrative Court, 30 December 2011, KHO:2011:116
Country of applicant: Thailand

The authority issuing residence permits did not issue a residence permit based on family ties because it suspected that the Applicants had entered a so-called marriage of convenience. In this case the Court examined whether the authorities could refuse to issue a residence permit, when the requirements for a permit were met, if they suspected that the Applicant had intensions to evade the rules on entry into the country.

Date of decision: 30-12-2011
Germany - Administrative Court Stuttgart, decision of 30 December 2011 – A 11 K 2066/11
Country of applicant: Iran

1. If an Iranian national is declined the opportunity to obtain a school-leaving certificate and attend a state school because of the refusal by Iranian authorities to issue him with identity papers, this constitutes a significant discriminatory administrative measure according to Article 9 paragraph 2 of the Qualification Directive.

 
2. The right to suitable education corresponding to a child’s abilities is recognised as a human right according to international law.

Date of decision: 30-12-2011
Ireland – High Court, 29 December 2011, R.A. v Minister for Justice and Equality, Garda National Immigration Bureau, Ireland and Attorney General [2011] IEHC 512
Country of applicant: Pakistan

The applicant sought to rely on her Islamic proxy marriage to her husband, a recognised refugee in Ireland, to resist removal to the UK under the Dublin Regulations. Her application for judicial review failed as she was held to have forfeited her right under Article 7 of the Dublin II Regulation due to delay on her part in asserting that right.

Date of decision: 29-12-2011
Slovenia - Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia, 28 December 2011, I Up 732/2011
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

The Plaintiff’s previous experience does not lead to the  conclusion that the Plaintiff is afraid of persecution (in the event that he was returned) based on race, religion, national identity, membership of a particular social group or a certain political belief, as his fear is based on the possible consequences of retribution merely because he fled. According to the judgment of the Supreme Court the fact that he fled from the Taliban does not make him a “member of a particular social group” on the basis of which his refugee status could be recognised.

Because the Plaintiff did not mention his current political conviction and his current anti-Taliban religious belief when applying for international protection he is not entitled to a refugee sur place status. 

Date of decision: 28-12-2011
Austria – Asylum Court, 28 December 2011, S7 423.367 to 370-1/2011/2E
Country of applicant: Russia (Chechnya)

This was an appeal against the decision that Poland was responsible for the asylum application of a three-month-old boy with a serious medical condition. The Austrian Federal Asylum Office did not consider the applicant’s medical condition appropriately and therefore risked violating Art 3 ECHR.

Date of decision: 28-12-2011
Finland - Supreme Administrative Court, 27 December 2011, KHO:2011:114
Country of applicant: Iran

A Muslim asylum seeker and his/her spouse joined Jehovah’s Witnesses in Finland – a religious community.  In their home country, Iran, converting away from Islam can mean a death sentence.  The Administrative Court should not have been allowed to deny the application without an oral hearing in which further information could have been given regarding the Applicants’ conversion to Christianity and the consequences thereof in their home country.

Date of decision: 27-12-2011