Case summaries
Use of the sovereignty clause in the Dublin Regulation is not conditional on the initially responsible Member State not responding to a request for transfer. When it is apparent from UNHCR documents that the responsible Member State is in breach of EU asylum laws, there is no obligation to request UNHCR to present its views on a particular transfer.
The political activities carried out in Belgium by the Syrian Applicant justified granting him refugee status; he should not be confined to the subsidiary protection granted due to the indiscriminate violence generated by the armed conflict in Syria.
The Council for Alien Law Litigation confirmed that those who enjoy subsidiary protection are equivalent to recognised refugees, for the purposes of family reunification. This means that they are exempted from additional conditions in relation to housing, health insurance, and means of subsistence provided that the application for family reunification is submitted within one year and the family ties existed before the arrival in Belgium of the reuniting person (who enjoys subsidiary protection). This is despite the fact that those who enjoy subsidiary protection do not fall within the scope of application of the Family Reunification Directive.
The Court recognised the Applicant as a refugee because he would be at risk of persecution due to his political opinions upon returning to his home country.
The Applicant had been forced to leave the UNRWA’s area of operations. The facts that had led to his departure from Lebanon justified ending his exclusion from the application of Article 1D of the Geneva Convention.
Rather than dismissing the application, the Court recognised the subsidiary protection status of the Applicant, as his/her return to the country of origin would lead to the risk of serious harm (inhuman, degrading treatment or indiscriminate violence).
After the case has been referred back to the Respondent, it will examine whether the Appellant only formally converted to Christianity and how he might prove that he was also putting his conversion into practice through his life and actions as a result of which his return to Iran would be excluded. In taking evidence on this question, the Respondent must cooperate with persons and bodies that might provide relevant information concerning the Appellant – for example, clergymen, Christian associations, churches and the like.
Applicant M was a citizen of Algeria who applied for a residence document in Finland on grounds of family relations. He/she was married to a sponsor called L and they had a joint minor child. L had another child from a previous marriage. A prerequisite for M to be granted a residence document was for him/her to have sufficient income, which he/she did not have. There was also the question of whether denying a residence document breached the Union citizen’s rights under Article 20 of the TFEU. The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that denying a residence document did not breach the Unio citizen’s rights. In addition, there were no factors which would support deviating from the means of support prerequisite as stated in the law.