Case summaries

The Court quashed the decision of the Office of Immigration and Nationality (OIN). The OIN based its decision on classified information obtained from the Constitutional Protection Office (CPO), which stated that the Applicant poses a threat to Hungary’s national security, and that he shall not be granted protection, with due regard to Article 1 f) c) of the Geneva Convention. The OIN failed to communicate the CPO’s opinion to the Applicant for nine months. The Court assessed that the proceedings were ‘exceptionally unlawful’.

The Migration Court of Appeal considered the applicant’s ability to obtain subsidiary protection status based on his need for protection as a Shia Hazara and a minor.
The Court denied the appeal by the Migration Agency and granted the defendant subsidiary protection status. 

Request to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the following issues: Procedural delay, jurisdiction and living conditions under the Dublin Regulation. 

Objective criteria to define a ‘risk of absconding’ must be established in a binding provision of general application. In the absence of that, Article 28(2) of the Dublin III Regulation is inapplicable and detention on this ground must be declared unlawful. The existence of case-law confirming a consistent administrative practice by domestic law-enforcement authorities does not suffice to conform to Article 28 of the Dublin III Regulation.

It was unlawful to detain an unaccompanied asylum seeking child, even in the reasonable belief that he was an adult.

The Syrian family's application for a Humanitarian Visa at the Belgian embassy in Lebanon fell outside the scope of the Visa Code, even if formally submitted on the basis of its Article 25(1)(a), because the purpose of the application (that is, to apply for asylum upon arrival to Belgium) differs from that of a short-term visa. 

The application of S.C. and her minor children Z.C. and F.C. related to the cassation of an Appeal Court judgement regarding compensation for the harm they suffered as a result of an indisputably unjust decision to place the Applicants in a Guarded Detention Centre for Foreigners. The Supreme Court reversed the challenged judgement and passed the case to the Appeal Court for re-consideration. 

It is not reasonably likely that a draft-evader would face criminal/administrative proceedings in Ukraine but there is a real risk that a person sentenced to imprisonment in Ukraine would be detained on arrival there and that detention conditions would breach Article 3 ECHR.

The Court of Appeal in this case focused on two main questions: 

1) To what extent is the decision-maker on an application for international protection obliged to investigate the authenticity of documents relied upon by the applicant in those cases where here credibility is challenged; and

2) Whether sufficient steps were taken to ensure that the documentary materials provided by the applicant were in fact proven to be authentic. 

The applicant, an ethnic Al-Bagal and Sunni Muslim from Moraya, Nyala, Darfur, Sudan feared imprisonment or execution by the Sudanese authorities. According to the applicant’s account he had been imprisoned for alleged political activities for a total of 18 months during which he was tortured. Subsequently, he was regularly harassed by the Intelligence Service.

The Danish Immigration Service rejected the asylum application in July 2016.

On 29 November 2016, the Refugee Appeals Board upheld the decision of the Danish Immigration Service. The majority of the Board did not find to a sufficient degree that a torture examination would be of essential importance for deciding the case.

The Refugee Appeals Board resumed the case based on a forensic report presented by the applicant. The Board now referring to the forensic report accepted that the applicant had been exposed to torture. The Board thus found that the applicant, to a sufficient degree, had rendered probable that he, if returning to Sudan, was at risk of persecution and granted the applicant refugee status according to the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (1).