Case summaries

The applicant’ s description of a situation which gives rise to a risk to his life or physical integrity, deriving from gender-based violence, social or religious group violence, family/domestic violence, which is accepted, tolerated or not tackled by the State, imposes an ex proprio motu further investigation upon the Judiciary. The latter entails an investigation into the control of  violence described by the applicant in terms of whether it is widespread, whether there is impunity for the acts as well as the State’s response

When verifying an asylum seeker’s claimed sexual orientation, Member States’ freedom of action is constrained by the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The evaluation of an asylum application should not be based on stereotyped notions and should include an individualised assessment taking into account the applicant’s personal circumstances, vulnerability in particular.

Not declaring homosexuality at the outset to the relevant authorities can not result in a conclusion that the individual’s declaration lacks credibility.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court found that the conflict in Ukraine is not an armed conflict as defined in the provisions  relating to the grant of subsidiary protection. Even if the applicant was attacked by some persons he did not know, his obligation was to seek assistance in his country of origin, even if obtaining assistance would seem illusory and not realistic.

Granting refugee status is not justified by the living conditions or economic situation of the applicant, but only by the existing fear of persecutions in the country of origin. The state and regional authorities help internally displaced persons (IDPs) in organizing a new life undertake all efforts to ensure housing and assistance to IDPs from the southern and eastern part of the country in western and central Ukraine

This case concerns the use of s. 13(6) findings under the Refugee Act as amended and the issues surrounding depriving an applicant of an oral hearing on the basis of their delay in claiming asylum. The Court rules that the Minister has discretion to apply s.13(6) but it must be proportionate and reasonable. 

The case examines the risk to an Iranian national if expelled to Iran in light of his political activities against the country’s regime. The Court confirmed that such a return would give rise to a violation of Article 3 ECHR and whilst finding an Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 3 violation as admissible it raised no separate issue in the case.

This CJEU ruling concerned the interpretation of Article 6 of Directive 2008/115/EC (‘the Return Directive’) in relation to the right to be heard prior to a return decision being made, to return illegally staying third-country nationals.

It was found that where the national authority had explicitly provided for the obligation to leave national territory in cases of illegal stay in its national legislation and the third-country national had properly been heard in the context of the procedure for examining his/her right to stay; the right to be heard did not require the applicant to be given an additional opportunity to present observations prior to the issue of a return decision. 

This case examined the compatibility of the Dublin II Regulation with the European Convention on Human Rights regarding transfers to Italy under the Dublin II Regulation.

The Court found a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights if the Swiss authorities were to send an Afghan couple and their six children back to Italy under the Dublin Regulation without having first obtained individual guarantees from the Italian authorities that the applicants would be taken charge of in a manner adapted to the age of the children and that the family would be kept together.

The case examines allegations of the indiscriminate expulsion of foreign nationals from Italy to Greece who had no access to asylum procedures and who subsequently feared deportation to their countries of origin. In regards to four of the applicants, the Court held that Greece violated Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or regarding treatment).  It also held that Italy violated Articles 13 and 3 as well as Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens.)

The European Court of Human Rights has held Turkey to be in violation of the applicant’s right to liberty as well as material reception conditions during his detention in Kumkapı Removal Centre. The Court further held that the applicant had not benefited from an effective remedy by which to complain of the detention conditions.

The possibility of submitting evidence for assessment is a basic procedural guarantee. Thus, if the party’s argumentation is based on defined circumstances, essential for his/her case, the responsible authority should hear witnesses and get acquainted with the evidence gathered within asylum proceedings handled by relevant authorities in another EU Member State.