Case summaries

In cases of deportation to a third country, the competent authority is required to assess, on a case-by-case basis, if the third country offers effective legal protection against deportation to the state of origin.

In the case of a Turkish journalist of Kurdish origin, the competent authority had only insufficiently assessed if the applicant enjoys sufficient legal protection in Brazil against refoulment to Turkey. It therefore violated her right to be heard.

The authorities followed an incorrect interpretation of the Dublin Regulation 604/2013 failing to take into account that the older applicant is the brother of the minor and should remain in Hungary under Article 10 of the Regulation, despite having lodged an application in Bulgaria.

The Appellant applied for asylum in Sweden on the basis of being a refugee as per his registration at the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). Alternatively the appellant argued that his need for protection should be judged against his previous residency in in Syria. The main issue faced by the court was whether the appellant’s normal place of residence should be considered as Syria or Algeria, and thus against which of these two countries the appellant’s need for protection should be judged.

The Court deemed Algeria to be the appellant’s normal place of residence based on his formal and non-formal ties to the country as well as his 18 months stay in the Algeria prior to coming to Sweden. Based on this the court did not deem the appellant to have the required need for protection and denied his appeal.

The ECtHR ruled that there had not been a violation of Article 5(1) ECHR in the applicant’s detention at the VIAL hotspot, a day after the entry into force of the EU-Turkey Statement. It also ruled that the threshold of severity required for their detention conditions to be considered as inhuman or degrading treatment had not been reached.

However, the ECtHR found that Greece violated the applicant’s rights under Article 5(2) by not providing them with detailed, understandable information about the reasons for their detention and the remedies available to them.

The carrying out of a transfer does not, in itself, definitively establish the responsibility of the Member State to which the person concerned has been transferred.

A Member State, to which an applicant has returned after being transferred, is not allowed to transfer that person anew to the requested Member State without respecting a take back procedure. In those circumstances, a take back request must be submitted within the periods prescribed in Article 24(2) of the Dublin III Regulation, which begins to run from the time the requesting Member State becomes aware of the presence of the person concerned on its territory.

National authorities can order experts’ reports with the purpose of assisting in the assessment of the facts and circumstances relating to a declared sexual orientation of an applicant, provided that the procedures for these reports are consistent with fundamental rights. However, the examining authority, courts or tribunal must not base their decision solely on the conclusions of an expert’s report and are not bound by these conclusions when assessing the applicant’s statements relating to his or her sexual orientation.

Moreover, national authorities are prohibited from preparing and using, in order to assess the veracity of a claim made by an applicant concerning his sexual orientation, of a psychologist’s expert report the purpose of which is, on the basis of a projective personality test, to provide an indication of the sexual orientation of the applicant. 

For the assumption of reasonable internal flight alternatives, a case-by-case assessment must be made on the basis of sufficient findings about the expected situation of the asylum applicant in the country of origin. On the basis of general information on the situation in the country of origin, a young, healthy man with school education and professional experience and who is familiar with the local conditions, can in principle be expected to resettle in Kabul.

The applicant, a national from Sierra Leone who claimed asylum in Switzerland on the grounds of persecution owing to his homosexuality, is found not to be at risk of treatment prohibited under Article 3 of the Convention in case of return to his country of origin. In substance, the Court recalls that national authorities are in the best position to carry out this risk assessment and recalls the UNHCR Guiding Principles on asylum claims based on sexual orientation, which require the evaluation of the risk through individual assessment, in addition to the examination of the country’s general situation. 

Following on from a request by several French NGOs to annul Decree No. 2017-430 of 29 March 2017 containing various provisions relating to the allowance for asylum seekers, the French Council of State annuls Article 6(2) of the Decree since it does not set in the Code on the entry and residence of aliens and the right of asylum (CESDA) an additional daily amount sufficient to enable adult asylum seekers who have accepted an offer of care, but to whom no accommodation place can be offered, to have accommodation on the private rental market.

To not allow young adults who have been refused asylum to terminate their studies deprives Article 8 ECHR of all weight, an Article which protects an individual’s professional training and personal development.  Even if the right to stay of a student is not protected by Article 8, the termination of a qualifying training which is on the horizon falls under the scope of private life within the ECHR. Therefore, the transfer of the applicant to a return centre would prevent her from finishing her schooling, ruining her 7 years of studies and would constitute a harm difficult to repair.