Case summaries
The contested judgment is unconstitutional as it does not provide a clear way of assessing the jurisdiction of the third country when dealing with the application. It also reveals that the situation of the Applicant for international protection is unclear in the event that the application is rejected by the third country and the Applicant is not allowed to enter its territory, and shows that it is unclear as to what the Applicant can contest in this procedure.
An efficient legal system that would stop the extradition to a country in which the Applicant could be exposed to inhuman treatment has to have suspensive effect.
This High Court ruling is in relation to a deportation order issued to remove three failed asylum seekers from Ireland. The case also deals with unlawful detention under Art. 40.4.2 of the Constitution and the inviolability of the dwelling under Art 40.5 of the Constitution.
The interest of an applicant to obtain a temporary stay from deportation to Italy for the time being predominates, if the applicant, in case of his return back to Italy, would be threatened with serious damage to his health due to inadequate accommodation opportunities there and because medical care would not be guaranteed due to a permanent overstretch of resources.
This ruling concerned the scope of judicial review when reviewing compliance with the criterion of Article 10(1) for determining responsibility for examining an asylum application under Regulation 343/2003. The Court held that Art. 19(2) of the Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances where a Member State has agreed to take charge of an applicant for asylum on the basis of the Art. 10(1) criterion the only way in which the applicant for asylum can call into question the choice of that criterion is by pleading systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and in the conditions for the reception of applicants for asylum in that Member State, which provide substantial grounds for believing that the applicant for asylum would face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Art. 4 of the Charter.
The Court examined the complaints of a Somali national concerning her detention conditions in Malta (Article 3), which deteriorated her mental health and resulted in inhuman and degrading treatment. She further alleged that her detention was in breach of Article 5 § 1, 2 and 4 (Right to liberty and security).
Examining the applicant’s complaints of unlawful detention, absence of information on the specific reasons of his detention and lack of access to effective remedies, the Court found a violation of Article 5 para 1 and Article 5 para 4 of the Convention.
A transfer in accordance with the Dublin Regulation does not require the Swedish Migration Board to investigate ex officio whether there are deficiencies in the asylum system in Italy. The transfer does, however, breach the right to a family life, in accordance with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
It is not the case that in autumn 2008 the Austrian authorities ought to have known that serious deficiencies in the Greek asylum system risked a violation of the Applicant’s Article 3 rights if transferred to Greece under the Dublin procedure.
An application for international protection lodged by an Afghan who illegally entered Austria was rejected. The Court found that the applicant had no well-founded fear of persecution in his country of origin nor was he to be granted the subsidiary protection status.
The Asylum Court upheld the Federal Asylum Agency’s rejection of the mother and son’s application on the basis that Poland was responsible for the application under the Dublin II Regulation. The Court held that Austria was not obliged to apply Article 3(2) Dublin II Regulation due to a threatened violation of Article 3 or Article 8 ECHR.