Case summaries
The Council of State applies the reasoning of ECtHR and CJEU jurisprudence to the reception conditions in Hungary to conclude that there may be a risk of ill-treatment upon return (Article 3 ECHR / Article 4 CFREU infringement) when a particularly vulnerable person who is fully dependent on state support will be confronted with "official indifference in a situation of serious deprivation or want incompatible with human dignity” upon return to Hungary.
An asylum seeker is entitled to request the temporary termination of his or her stay in an accommodation centre and to seek alternative accommodation if compliance with the distancing rules of the Saxon Corona Protection Ordinance is not possible in the centre.
The fact that an asylum seeker has already been persecuted in the past or has been subject to direct threats of persecution, was considered as a well-founded argument to believe that the applicant would face the risk to be persecuted under Article 1, Section A §2 of the 1951 Refugee Convention.
Article 48 para. 3 sentence 2 and 3 AufenthG does not offer a suitable legal basis for the search of homes.
The issue of a search warrant according to police and public order law requires concrete evidence that certain documents could be detected. The violation of the obligation to cooperate according to § 48 para. 3 sentence 1 AufenthG (refusal of the applicant to obtain a passport or similar), as well as vaguely expressed doubts of the authorities about the passport loss, are not sufficient to issue a warrant for the search of homes. Such a search warrant is in any case not proportionate if the probability of detection is low.
When national administrations assess a request for international protection, they must take more precautions when investigating the credibility of facts from the applicant’s story in case of post-traumatic stress and female genital mutilation.
The authorities must comply with their duties to cooperate with the applicant in establishing the relevant facts of the case by being cautious and meticulous before concluding that certain contradictions and inaccuracies exist.
The High Court has issued a judgment following an application for an interim order. The matter concerns the accommodation of asylum-seekers who display Covid-19 symptoms, who bears the responsibility for accommodating asylum-seekers who are symptomatic, and the communication of policy and practice in this area.
Member States cannot merely refer to the existence of public order and security concerns under Article 72 TFEU, in order to derogate from their obligations under Title V without proving that it was necessary to do so. Such a derogation cannot be made unilaterally without any control by the European institutions. As the assessment of whether an applicant constitutes a danger to national security or public order should be thorough and individualised, in accordance with previous findings in C‑369/17 (Ahmed), Member States cannot invoke this provision in the context of general prevention but have to directly link it with a specific case.
Lastly, the spirit of solidarity and the binding nature of the Relocation Decisions do not allow Member States to derogate on the basis of a Member State’s own assessment of the effectiveness of the mechanism without suggesting a sound legal basis
Well-grounded information is of central importance to any decision to exclude a person convicted for criminal matters from international protection in accordance with Article 1 F of the 1951 Refugee Convention.
The detention of children is, in principle, permitted under Article 5 ECHR for the shortest amount of time, in appropriate conditions and facilities, and only after the Government has correctly concluded that less coercive measures are unavailable.
The complaint of the applicants under Article 3 are manifestly unfounded.
The right to be heard (Art. 103 par. 1 German Basic Law - Grundgesetz) guarantees every party access to all documents relevant for the decision, which includes status reports on the applicant’s country of origin in asylum cases.
The right to be heard also guarantees that the court takes all information and evidence into account presented by the applicant. § 74 Abs. 2 Asylum Act (Asylgesetz) limits the time period in which an applicant may present information and evidence to one month, however this only refers to information and evidence concerning the applicant’s personal experiences (individueller Lebensbereich). Information and evidence i.e. on the overall situation in the country may also be presented after a month.