Case summaries

The case concerns the removal of a Brazilian national residing in French Guiana (a French overseas département-région) and his inability to challenge the measure before its enforcement.

In a situation of unlawful detention – unlawful because it did not comply with national and European norms on the detention of illegally staying citizens – as well as inhuman and degrading conditions in the Identification and Expulsion Centre, the revolt by the four Defendants should be considered as proportionate and the alleged conduct should be treated as legitimate defence.

Neither the Applicant, who was approximately nine years old at the time of the decision, nor her parents had submitted reasons for persecution specifically relevant to the Applicant in the proceedings at the court of first instance or in the appeal. Despite this, the Asylum Court reached the conclusion – amongst other things after a personal hearing of the Applicant – that the Applicant would be persecuted directly by the state or privately in Afghanistan owing to her membership of a particular social group and the religious-political attitude to which she would be subjected. In doing so the Asylum Court applied child specific considerations.

In addition, the Court stated that group persecution was to be assumed with regard to Afghan women.

This case concerns the interpretation of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98) and of Article 4(3) TEU.

The right to family reunification involving Union citizens who are minor children living with their mothers, who are third country nationals, in the territory of the Member State of which the children are nationals and changes in the composition of the families following the mothers’ remarriage to third country nationals and the birth of children of those marriages who are also third country nationals. The case involves the right to respect for family life and how to take into consideration the children’s best interests.

Acts of a criminal nature cannot be equated with persecution within the meaning of grounds cited under the Convention. Public authorities in the country of origin, which the family of the foreignor did not contact, are supposed to provide protection against risks posed by individual citizens.

This is a judgment on the cassation appeal against the judgment of the Regional Administrative Court in Warsaw (case ref.: V SA/Wa 934/10) of 5 August 2010 dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Local Government Appeals Court in Warsaw on refusal to grant assistance within the framework of an integration programme for foreigners.

The rights of refugees and of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection in regard to integration assistance should not be withdrawn or denied for the sole reason that they have been convicted of a crime – regardless of whether they committed the crime prior to receiving protection or prior to submitting an application for integration assistance. Such action would not be in the public interest, for it is assumed, in regard to the decision to provide protection to the foreigner, that the state should take steps to facilitate the integration of foreigners.

The authorities may not demand that an asylum seeker exercise restraint in the practice of his religion.

This case deals with whether an applicant, in a system where refugee status determination and subsidiary protection are examined separately, can require the administrative authorities in that State to supply them with the results of the assessment made in advance of a decision when it is proposed that such an application should be refused. The CJEU held that the obligation to cooperation under Article 4(1) of the Qualification Directive cannot be interpreted in that way but in such a separate system the fundamental rights of the Applicant must be respected and in particular the principle of the right to be heard.

These joint cases concern Article 1F(c) of the Refugee Convention. The Court considered what acts fall within the exclusion and what is meant by "serious reasons for considering" a person to be guilty of acts contrary to the purposes of the United Nations (“UN”).