Case summaries
Detaining children in a closed centre designed for adults is unlawful and ill-suited to their extreme vulnerability, even though they were accompanied by their mother.
No provision imposes a time limit on the determining authority within which a decision on asylum applications has to be taken. The only obligation, for which no sanction is foreseen, is to inform the applicant when a decision cannot be taken within a period of six months.
This case concerned the appropriate manner in which an application for subsidiary protection is to be decided where there may be at least an implicit claim of a “serious and individual threat” to the applicant by reason of indiscriminate violence. The Court found that Article 15(c) of the Directive does not impose a free-standing obligation on the Minister to investigate a possible armed conflict situation, it is for the applicant to make this claim and to make submissions and offer evidence establishing that he is from a place where there is a situation of international of internal armed conflict, and that he is at risk of serious harm by reason of indiscriminate violence.
Art 5 of the Qualification Directive does not require that the relevant activity, in relation to a sur place claim that gives rise to well-founded fear of persecution, is a continuation of previous activities performed in the country of origin.
Art 3 and Art 15 Dublin Regulation are only applicable if there exist compelling reasons to believe the receiving country is incapable of welcoming asylum applicants in appropriate conditions or if the applicants can prove that they personally risk being subjected to ill treatment or not benefitting fully from an effective right to asylum. In this case, the applicants had not demonstrated they were personally victims of ill treatment in Poland. Poland was considered to offer sufficient guarantees against deportation and for an effective and impartial asylum procedure.
Revocation of refugee status was lawful for a leading member of an organisation which has committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations (president of the Forces Démocratiques pour la Libération du Rwanda - FDLR).
The basis for a person’s detention under 5(1)(f) of the Convention is legally untenable when there is a lack of a realistic prospect of the applicant’s expulsion and the domestic authorities fail to conduct the expulsion proceedings with due diligence.
After the expiry of the six months’ time limit for transfer, the responsibility for examining the applications for asylum lies with the Member State in which these applications were lodged. This Member State shall examine the applications in accordance with national asylum law.
If an applicant raises circumstances that could present a potential breach of Art 3 ECHR it is impossible to reject the application as manifestly unfounded. The case must be considered on its merits and the deciding authority needs to have accurate COI.
The protection provided by the 1951 Refugee Convention can only be afforded if it is established that the asylum applicant, for a valid reason linked to one of the grounds listed in Art 1A(2) of this Convention, is unable or unwilling to avail him/herself of the protection of the country(ies) of nationality or, for a stateless person, of the country of habitual residence.