Case summaries
Article 11(2) of Directive 2003/86 must be interpreted as precluding the rejection of an application for family reunification lodged by a sponsor in favour of a minor of whom she is allegedly the guardian solely on the grounds of lack of official documentary evidence of the family relationship and the sponsor’s inability to explain the absence of such evidence being deemed implausible on the basis of general country of origin information.
Authorities have to take into consideration the specific circumstances of the sponsor and the minor, including the difficulties they faced during and after their flight from their country.
This appeal considered what the correct approach is to the assessment of medical evidence in asylum claims alleging torture. Hence, it was declared that decision-makers can receive assistance from medical experts who are able to offer an opinion about the injury inflicted. The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal and remitted KV’s appeal against the refusal of asylum to the Upper Tribunal for fresh determination.
When deciding upon an asylum applicant’s age, authorities should assess the evidence in a holistic way, and not rely solely on medical examinations of the applicant. If, in the absence of sufficient evidence, authorities conclude that the applicant is an adult, they need to justify their decision by reference to the grounds for its conclusion.
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)