Case summaries
The High Court granted an order under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 that the scheme of “Right to Rent” set out in sections 20-37 of the Immigration Act 2014 was incompatible with ECHR rights, along with a further order that it could not be extended beyond England without a further evaluation.
The precarious living conditions in Calais and the failure of the French authorities to comply with judicial orders to protect the applicant, in view of his personal circumstances and young age, reach the threshold for a breach of Article 3.
A medical examination to assess vulnerability was requested by an applicant in administrative detention. This demand was not examined by the doctor in charge in the detention facility. Therefore, the court of appeal refused an extension of the applicant’s administration detention and ordered their release.
The difficulties in access to the regional telephone operating centers set up by the French Office for Immigration and Integration (OFII) in order to obtain an appointment to register asylum applications leads to legal uncertainty for asylum seekers. This legal uncertainty violates their constitutional right to asylum, and therefore creates an emergency situation on which the Urgent Applications Judge can adjudicate.
Delays in the asylum procedure which cannot be imputed to the asylum seeker, and failure to consider less coercive alternatives when detention exceeds reasonable time limits, render detention unlawful.
The notification about the intention of withdrawal from the EU by the Member-State responsible for the examination of the application for international protection does not trigger the determining Member-State’s obligation to make use of the discretionary clause of Article 17(1) 604/2013 EU. Similarly, Article 6 (1) cannot be interpreted as imposing an obligation on the Member State that is not responsible to take into account the best interests of the child and to examine the application itself under 17 (1)
The case deals with a controversy, in which E.F. attributed profit making and trafficking activities to some specific NGOs working in the field of migrant accommodation through a public Facebook post. The Facebook post was regarded as hostile and discriminatory towards the organisations working in the field and towards asylum seekers.
The Judge of the liberty and detention of the Lyon Court of Appeal released the applicant based on the unavailability of the necessary medical care needed in his country of return.
The extension of the transfer period in accordance with Art. 29 para. 2 sentence 2 Dublin Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 (Dublin III Regulation) requires that the asylum applicant absconds, which has to be proven by the transferring authority.
Absconding is only the case, if the asylum applicant cannot be reached by the competent authorities for an (undefined) longer period of time. The intention to evade the authorities does not have to be proven. The circumstances of the individual case are decisive.
The recognition of gender identity is a matter of respect towards the individual’s personality, protected under Greek and international law and applicable by analogy to refugees. Refugees must be able to request assistance from the authorities of the host-country, as refugeehood entails severed ties with the country of origin making it impossible for recognised refugees to request official actions from their governments.