Case summaries
The case examined the allegations of five Afghan nationals that their detention conditions in Pagani detention centre were in violation of Article 3 of the Convention, that they did not have access to an effective remedy (Article 13) and that they were deprived of their liberty and security as well as of their right to have the lawfulness of their detention decided speedily by a Court (Article 5 para 4).
The case concerned complaints under Article 5 § 1 by asylum
seekers staying at the Debrecen Reception Centre for Refugees (Hungary) about the unlawfulness of their detention – without effective judicial review – pending the outcome of their asylum claims.
The case concerns an asylum seeker’s complaint under Article 5(1) about the unlawfulness of his detention without effective judicial review, pending the outcome of his asylum claim.
Where information used by the National Asylum Court (CNDA) to reach its decision is information concerning the asylum seeker’s specific situation, it must be kept on file so that the parties can take note of it and discuss it.
Malta’s failure to respect the minimum conditions set for asylum seekers creates a situation in which the requirements stipulated by Italian law for suspending transfers under the Dublin II Regulation can be considered to have been met when waiting for a final decision on an appeal against such a transfer.
When assessing the application for international protection the Ministry of Interior (MI) did not take into account the Applicant’s youth, lack of education and background. The MI did not conduct the procedure and pose questions in a manner that was suitable to the Applicant’s age and personality.
The country of origin information that the Applicant submitted only in his appeal against the decision should be accepted as this is generally available information that MI could have obtained on its own.
Persecution at the hands of political authorities acting for political reasons and with a political objective although not arising from the actual or imputed opinions of the individual concerned.
The case refers to an appeal to the Supreme Court brought by the appellant against the High National Court’s decision to deny asylum.
The appellant is a Syrian national of Kurdish ethnicity and claims to be affiliated to the Kurdish political party “Azadi Akrad Siria” and to carry out political propaganda activities on their behalf.The Court affirms the denial of asylum and furthermore excludes the appellant from having the status of refugee sur place, even though the situation in Syria has changed since the application for asylum was lodged.However, taking into account the severe deterioration of the socio-political situation in Syria, the Supreme Court recognises the appellant’s right to remain in Spain on humanitarian grounds.
The appeal authority is obliged to assess the case on the basis of all the evidence and to provide proper grounds for its decision. It is not sufficient, therefore, to state in general terms that the second-instance authority shares the position of the head of the Polish Office for Foreigners and the arguments put forward by him. If the principle of two-instance administrative proceedings is to be observed, it is not enough to assert that two decisions by two authorities of different rank were issued in the given case.
The CALL held that the fact the Applicant had already suffered very severe genital mutilation (type III – infibulation) was a serious indicator of a well-founded fear of persecution due to her membership of a particular social group.