Case summaries
The Court found no violation of the Convention given that the applicants would have had access to a genuine and effective possibility of submitting arguments against their expulsion had they entered lawfully into Spain – they did not have any “cogent reasons” for not using the border procedures available at designated entry points. As such, the lack of an individualised procedure for their removal was the consequence of their own conduct.
A Dublin transfer to Bulgaria is annulled due to the vulnerability of the applicant combined with the risk of inadequate psychological treatment in Bulgaria, the applicant’s first country of asylum, and the lack sufficient individual guarantees in case of Dublin transfer.
The Judge of the liberty and detention of the Nice Judicial Tribunal declared irregular the procedure during which the applicant was notified of his administrative detention more than an hour after the end of his police interrogation.
The Judge considered that the deprivation of liberty during that time had no legal foundation.
The domestic body of civil law and civil procedure relating to family disputes was found to be applicable in accordance with Articles 12 and 16 of the 1951 Geneva Convention, as the applicant was a recognised refugee in the country and needed to end her marriage.
In view of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Swiss authorities should obtain formal and detailed guarantees on care and accommodation from the Italian authorities before transferring families and vulnerable persons to Italy under the Dublin III Regulation.
This is because Decree-law 113/218 on Public safety and Immigration in Italy has deeply reformed the Italian refugee reception system.
Article 6(1)(e) of the Schengen Borders Code does not preclude the issue of a return decision to a third-country national not subject to a visa requirement and who is present on the territory of a M.S. for a short stay if that national is suspected of having committed a criminal offence. Moreover, the Code does not impose an obligation to establish, in order to issue such a decision, that their conduct represents a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of the society of the Member State concerned, as long as the principle of proportionality is respected.
Article 10(2) of Directive 2003/86 allows Member States to define autonomously the nature of the relationship of dependence between the sponsor and the family member not referred in art. 4, as long as the national law have regard of all the relevant circumstances of the refugee’s situation through a case-by-case approach.
The applicant brought an administrative action before the Administrative Court of the Circuit of Lisbon against the Ministry of Internal Affairs - Foreigners and Borders Service (SEF), in which he sought the annulment of the decision of the National Director of the SEF determining his transfer to Italy and the condemnation of the requested entity in the continuation of the process of international protection.
The Central Administrative Southern Court dismissed the appeal and, on grounds other than those set out in the contested judgment, upheld the decision to annul the decision of the National Director of SEF.
The ECJ has to decide on the assessment of the existence of a serious individual threat by reason of mere presence in a certain area. It has to decide whether there is a minimal threshold of civilian fatalities that excludes such risk or if a holistic approach taking into account all circumstances special to the case has to be followed to assess the existence of such threat.
The administrative detention of an Afghan national was imposed on the basis of a procedural error due to the lack of relevant documentation and unjustified information by the French authorities (Prefect and Prosecutor).