Case summaries

Foreigners who have lodged an application for international protection cannot be taken into detention pending deportation as a person remaining in the country unlawfully.

If a more recent application for international protection has been lodged in the transfer country, then the Applicant will again be assigned the status of an asylum seeker in accordance with the Dublin II Regulation. The (re-)receiving country must undertake an examination of the application for asylum made in another Member State, even if it is a “subsequent application”.

Regardless of the parallel extradition proceedings, the Ministry of the Interior is obliged within the proceedings to assess the consequences of prosecution of the Applicant for a criminal offence in the country of origin in the context of fulfilling the conditions for international protection. In case of fear of action by private persons, the possibility and effectiveness of protection provided by the state against such actions is to be assessed.

There has been a violation of Article 47 (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union if there is a failure to hold a hearing at the Asylum Court, notwithstanding that the facts of the case are not sufficiently clear. Merely general statements without reference to the case in point do not represent sufficient grounds for the lack of credibility of the submission.

The ECtHR ruled that the detention of an Algerian national in a Bulgarian detention centre was in breach of Article 5(1) ECHR due to the length of the detention and the lack of diligence by the Bulgarian authorities when taking steps to carry out the applicant’s expulsion, and of Article 5(4) ECHR. Secondly the court considered whether the Bulgarian government had been in breach of Article 5 (4) due to the excessive delay until the applicant’s challenge against his detention was heard before a court. 

This was a judgment on the cassation appeal against the judgment of the Regional Administrative Court in Warsaw of 13 September 2006 (case ref. V SA/Wa 82/06) on dismissal of the appeal against the decision of the Polish Refugee Board on refusal to accord refugee status and grant a permit for tolerated stay.

Members of a refugee’s family may constitute a particular social group within the meaning of Article 1A(2) of the Geneva Convention, and the fact of being related to a refugee may also give rise to a risk of persecution that justifies according refugee status to a foreigner.

The Applicant, an unaccompanied Afghan minor, stated that he had left his home country owing to his abduction and the threat of sexual abuse by the local ruler. The right to a decision by the statutory judge was violated by the fact that the decision on the application for international protection was made by a court panel consisting of two judges, one male and one female.

It is the duty of the Applicant to show that he has been persecuted or is at serious risk of persecution. He should describe that persecution and present it to the fullest extent possible, showing how it relates to him in particular. Lack of acceptance by one’s family, social ostracism, and the negative perception of people of a different sexual orientation do not constitute grounds for according refugee status. However, given that the foreigner’s illness (AIDS) is at a very advanced stage and that he is undergoing treatment for epilepsy, it is necessary to consider whether deportation to his country of origin would violate his right to life.

Applicant of Palestinian origin received refugee status. Assistance from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) ceased for reasons beyond the applicant’s control, and therefore the applicant is entitled ipso facto to the benefits provided by the Convention.

Although same-sex conducts are not expressly criminalised and prosecuted in Gambia, the climate of intolerance, together with the actual treatment of LGBTI persons, shows that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution. 

Referring specifically to the asylum procedures directive, the Council of State examines the external and internal legality of the French list of safe countries of origin and decides to take Bangladesh off the list.