Case summaries
A national law which requires the sponsor and his/her spouse to have reached the age of 21 by the date on which the application for family reunification is submitted (rather than by the date on which the decision on the application is made) is consistent with Art. 4 (5) of the Family Reunion Directive (Directive 2003/86/EC)
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that the procedure for examining applications for family reunification had to contain a number of elements, having regard to the applicants’ refugee status on the one hand and the best interests of the children on the other, so that their interests as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention from the point of view of procedural requirements were safeguarded.
Ouseley J in the High Court held although the practice and policy of the Secretary of State in operating the Detained Fast Track System (DFT) was not unlawful in its terms, there was room for improvement. The screening process must not only focus on the suitability of a claim for fast-tracking, but it must also consider the impact that a tight timetable and detention may have on the fair presentation of a claim. In addition, lawyers must be allocated to applicants earlier to allow for meaningful instructions to be given and to allow for vulnerable status to be highlighted. Falling short of unlawfulness, the system carried too high a risk that unfair determinations would be made against applicants.
The ECtHR holds that Russia is in violation of Article 5 ECHR and of Article 4 of Protocol 4 through the implementation of an unlawful administrative practice against a large number of Georgian nationals as a means of identifying them. This led to the arrest, detention and collective expulsion of 4634 Georgians from the Russian Federation and further violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.
The Dublin transfer of the applicant to Hungary will not violate Article 3 of the Convention.
The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that, due to the availability of internal protection, Sweden can deport an asylum seeker back to Iraq provided that he is not returned to parts of Iraq situated outside the Kurdistan Region.
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.