Case summaries

Regarding the return of a Turkish applicant from Greece to Türkiye, her account constituted a prima facie case of refoulement, shifting the burden of proof to the Greek Government after evidentiary standards from secret detention cases were applied. The return of the applicant without any individual assessment or access to remedies, despite her asylum request and risk of ill-treatment due to alleged links to opposition movements in Türkiye, amounts to a violation of Articles 3 and 13 ECHR.

The applicant’s unregistered detention at a border guard station, without legal basis, information on the reasons for her arrest, or access to judicial review, as part of a broader Greek pattern of unlawful returns, amounts to a violation of Article 5(1), (2) and (4) ECHR. Although the applicant failed to prove a real risk to life or inhuman or degrading treatment during her removal process – where she travelled by an inflatable boat with other migrants –, the absence of an effective remedy to challenge such risks amounts to a violation of Article 13 ECHR.

The Committee against Torture decided that the removal of the complainant, a (former) Turkish national, from Sweden to Kosovo, where he would face a real risk of being forcibly transferred to and subjected to torture in Türkiye, would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention.

The Court found no violation of Article 8 ECHR took place as the requirements set out by the Swedish Temporary Restrictions Act were in line with the Family Reunification Directive and the European consensus. The balancing exercise was therefore performed correctly.

CD v Ministerstvo vnitra České republiky, Odbor azylové a migrační politiky establishes that the right to remain under the Asylum Procedures Directive (2013/32) completely immunises an applicant from being classified as an illegally staying third-country national under the Return Directive (2008/115). Consequently, a return decision cannot be issued at any point between the submission of an asylum application and the first-instance rejection of that application, even if the return decision concerns a period of illegal stay that occurred before the asylum application was made.

States have a rigorous procedural obligation under Article 3 ECHR when assessing the risk of ill-treatment in a last minute asylum application submitted shortly before removal. Even where a subsequent application is made at a very late stage, domestic authorities cannot dismiss newly submitted documents as irrelevant due to lack of authenticity or translation without conducting any substantive assessment of their potential relevance in light of the applicant's individual circumstances and the general situation in the country of origin.

A three-day time limit, including public holidays and non-working days, for lodging an appeal against a decision rejecting an application for international protection as manifestly unfounded under an accelerated procedure is incompatible with Article 46(4) of the Asylum Procedures Directive where it restricts the effective exercise of the rights guaranteed in Article 12(1)(b) and (2), and Articles 22 and 23 of that Directive.

An applicant will not be subject to risk of ill treatment under Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR, either because of the general security situation in Libya or the applicant’s previous work affiliated with the Gaddafi regime. The Court found that the situation in Libya was not such that the applicant would face ill treatment upon return and that the documents submitted to prove otherwise were of low evidentiary value.

Serbia, by refusing to issue the refugee applicant a travel document due to the absence of appropriate regulations, breached Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4 of the ECHR

The Court found that the Swiss legislation sets stringent socio-economic requirements which in practice may render the right to family reunification impossible to exercise, in view of the personal situation of the sponsors residing in Switzerland and who cannot be expected to do the impossible to meet the conditions imposed on them.

Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/83 requires the determining authority, under its duty of cooperation, to obtain up-to-date country of origin information and, where relevant, a medico-legal report on the applicant’s mental health; a breach of that duty does not automatically lead to annulment unless it may have affected the outcome.

Under Directive 2005/85, delays in the asylum procedure cannot be justified by legislative changes and, on their own, do not warrant setting aside a decision absent an impact on the outcome.

Article 4(5)(e) of Directive 2004/83 means that a false statement later explained and withdrawn at the first opportunity does not, by itself, undermine the applicant’s general credibility.