Case summaries
The case concerns the interpretation of Directive 2004/83 and clarifies that the Irish legislation requiring seekers of international protection to follow two separate procedural stages: application for refugee status, and in case of refusal, application for subsidiary protection, is not contrary to EU law if the two applications can be introduced at the same time and if the application for subsidiary protection is considered within a reasonable period of time.
The right to good administration includes the right of any person to have his or her affairs handled impartially and within a reasonable period of time.
The applicant’s transfer from Austria to Greece in April 2009 under the Dublin Regulation did not violate Article 3 of the Convention.
After an initial refusal, for the re-examination of an asylum application to be admissible:
either, new facts must have arisen since the first decision; or, facts existed prior to the first decision but were rightfully unknown to the Applicant at the time of the first decision, and;
the aforementioned facts are capable of establishing grounds for a re-examination of the case.
The proceedings before the Slovak Regional Court in respect of judicial review of the applicant’s detention had been incompatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court).
Detention conditions in Greece contrary to Article 3 of the Convention; Lack of effective review of the lawfulness of detention in violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled that Spain violated the right to an effective remedy of 30 asylum seekers of Sahrawi origin who faced removal to Morocco before a thorough examination of their asylum application. It was only the ECtHR’s intervention that halted their deportation.
The provisions of the Asylum Procedures Directive have been fully transposed into the CESEDA. A decision of the OFPRA based on all the documents/ evidence submitted by the applicant in support of his subsequent application without an interview does not infringe Article 41(2) of the Charter. When OFPRA considered the subsequent application, it was legitimate for it to have rejected the application without any interview since the new documents/ evidence provided were without merits. The Court found that M.A’s application must be rejected without any need to re-examine the facts he submitted, including those in his first application. The application of M.A was rejected.
By not considering country information submitted by the applicant, the Slovenian Migration Office did not establish all relevant facts and circumstances of the case before it. The Office had not clearly and precisely explained which reasons it considered as decisive in determining that the degree of indiscriminate violence in the applicant’s country of origin did not reach such a level that the applicant would be subjected to a serious and individual threat to his life or person in the event of return to his country of origin.
Although the decision and length of Greek detention of asylum seekers was justified and proportionate, the conditions of the Venna detention centre did not comply with Article 3 and there was no effective review of the lawfulness of their detention.
The case concerns a family of asylum seekers who needed accommodation in Belgium while their asylum application was being considered. The CJEU declares that if a Member State chooses to provide material reception to asylum seekers in the form of a financial allowance rather than direct public services, the allowance must be enough to ensure a dignified standard of living. In addition, the allowance must be provided from the time at which the asylum application is made and should ensure that it is sufficient to enable minor children to be housed with their parents in order to maintain the family unity of the asylum seekers.