Case summaries

The French National Asylum Court (CNDA) must do a complete assessment of facts and circumstances in deciding whether an applicant should be granted refugee status, or failing that, subsidiary protection. In doing so, it must take into account all the documentation provided by the Applicant in support of the application. In this case, the Applicant’s medical evidence documentation and the evidence relating to the potential risks she is likely to face if she returns to her country (fear of persecution due to imputed political opinions) should have been taken into account.

The CNDA did not consider that evidence and did not include it in its decision.

The Spanish Supreme Court’s Administrative Chamber decides on the appeal of the applicant, whose application for international protection has been rejected. The Court solves the case reasoning that the situation in the country of origin has  improved from the moment the applicant lodged the application, and in addition, no sufficient proof of the said persecution was presented.

The Court of Appeal concluded that to send a refugee who has a residence permit in Italy and an asylum seeker back to the country would not violate Article 3 ECHR.

The court further constrained the decision in Tarakhel to families with minor children. 

Based on the principle of effectiveness, the CJEU ruled that a limit of 15 days to apply for subsidiary protection following a notification of the decision not to grant refugee status is particularly short and cannot be justified by the need to ensure an effective return procedure. The limited period endangers applicants’ ability to submit an application for subsidiary protection.

A Judge when hearing applications for interim measures may issue an injunction against the administration on the basis of Article L. 521 of the Code of Administrative Justice when the administration’s behaviour reveals a manifest disregard of any of the requirements within the right of asylum and such an action results in serious consequences for the asylum applicant, considering in particular his age, health status and family situation.

There had been a gap of more than one month between the twenty-four hour reconsideration order made by the Judge hearing applications for interim measures, and the offer of material reception conditions made by the French Office for Immigration and Integration. This was notwithstanding the fact that at the time of the injunction, the applicant was already in a situation of extreme vulnerability (with no financial resources and five dependent children). This therefore constituted a violation of the requirements within the right of asylum which was likely to have serious consequences for the asylum applicant.

The ECtHR ruled that the Greek authorities had failed in their positive obligation under Article 8 ECHR to guarantee that the applicant’s asylum request is examined within a reasonable time in order to ensure that his situation of insecurity, which impinges upon several elements of his private life, is as short-lived as possible. 

A Dublin Transfer to Italy should be prevented when the person concerned is a vulnerable person as per in Article 3 (2) Dublin III Regulation.

The Court quashed the decision of the Office of Immigration and Nationality (OIN) because it failed to carry out a proper establishment of facts as required by the Dublin III Regulation.

The applicant appeals the ruling of the Directorate-General for Domestic Policy, made on 16th February 2015, which denies leave to proceed (inadmissible) for international protection, claiming that another Member state (Poland) and not Spain is responsible for the examination of the asylum application as, on 3rd February 2015, Poland granted the applicant a visa.

The Member State before which the request for international protection is presented has the power to authorise temporary residence for the applicant, at their discretion, if the applicant is suffering from a serious illness which requires medical attention. In this case, the applicant is suffering from an illness but, according to the National Court, it is not a serious illness which requires specialised medical assistance. 

The Office of Immigration and Nationality issued a decision on the responsibility of the Republic of Bulgaria under the Dublin III Regulation, without having informed the Applicant about the applicability of the Regulation in his case. The Court quashed the decision and declared the Applicant’s right to be heard was not respected.