Case summaries
The impossibility to proceed with an asylum applicant’s transfer to another Member State responsible for examining the asylum application is established once there is a clear and real risk for the interested party to be subject to torture or inhuman or degrading treatments within the meaning of articles 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU), even in the absence of having serious reasons to believe there are systemic failures in the Member State’s asylum system.
In the lack of audiovisual recording of the interview, the Judge must set the appearance hearing, otherwise being the decree issued null and void for the breach of the adversarial principle.
In direct application of Art. 15 (2) of the Reception Conditions Directive, according to which asylum applicants must be given effective access to the labour market, the requirements of the Act Governing the Employment of Foreign Nationals (AuslBG) must be modified. The non-existence of a unanimous approval by the Regional Council pursuant to Art. 4 (3) AuslBG does not preclude the granting of employment permits to asylum applicants.
The case deals with the illegitimacy of denying the registration of an international protection request on the basis of the request being issued before a non-competent authority and lacking the criterion of “autonomous accommodation”.
The ECtHR ruled that the detention of a Syrian national was unlawful as his return to Syria was impracticable, which the authorities should have known at that time. It was incumbent on the domestic authorities to consider alternative measures in respect of the applicant. The applicant did not have the benefit of an examination of the lawfulness of his detention to a sufficient degree. Therefore, there was a violation of Articles 5(1) and (4) ECHR.
The ECtHR also ruled that his detention at the Zografou police station led to a violation of his rights under Article 3 ECHR, since it lacked the amenities required for prolonged periods of detention.
Member States can issue a return decision together with, or right after, a negative decision on an asylum application at first instance, as long as they ensure that all judicial effects of the return decision are suspended during the time allowed to appeal and pending that appeal.
During that period, and despite being subjected to a return decision, an asylum applicant must enjoy all the rights under the Reception Conditions Directive. The applicant can rely upon any changes in circumstances affecting his claim that came up after the return decision, before the appeals authority.
The detention of three Sri Lankan nationals on grounds of public order before their removal from Cyprus was found to be lawful by the Court. However, the Court found that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their detention, in violation of Article 5(4) ECHR.
The applicant appealed the Migration Court’s decision to dismiss his application for asylum on grounds of the availability of an internal protection alternative in the applicants home country of Afghanistan.
The Migration Court of Appeal granted the appeal as it was held that the question of internal protection can only be assessed after the court has made an individual assessment of the original grounds for protection invoked by the applicant.
The applicant, a Chinese citizen, feared, if she returned to China, she would be persecuted and exposed to torture by the Chinese Communist Government due to her Falun Gong activities.
The Refugee Appeals Board did not find that she was a particular profiled member of Falun Gong or that she was wanted by the Chinese Authorities as she left China legally notwithstanding that she had been detained several times for shorter periods and imprisoned for seven years during which she was exposed to torture. However, the Board found that the Chinese Authorities were aware of the applicant ‘s political positions regarding Falun Gong and the human rights situation in China due to comprehensive media activities and participation in demonstrations in Copenhagen. Therefore, after an overall assessment including the fact that the applicant had been imprisoned for seven years, the Board granted the applicant reugee status under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (1).
The European Court of Human Rights finds Russian authorities violated an American national’s Article 8 right to respect for family life, as it had compelled her to leave Russia, where her husband and minor child were living.