Case summaries
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has held that the conditions of various detention centres in Greece, where the applicant was placed, along with the living conditions after his release, constituted degrading treatment and thus a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The European Court of Human Rights has held that the detention conditions in the Police Directors of the Aliens Directorate of Thessaloniki and Attica Aliens Directorate, where a Georgian national was held, amounted to inhumane treatment. However, the Court declined to accept that the individual’s right to liberty and security along with his right to judicially review the legality of his detention had been infringed.
The Respondent erred in detaining the Applicant under § 88a (1)(a) point 1 of Act No 404/2011 Coll. on the residence of aliens and amending certain other Acts in proceedings relating to administrative expulsion to the Ukraine, despite being aware of the Applicant’s intention to apply for asylum. The Respondent also incorrectly assessed whether Ukraine is a safe third country as he failed to take into account recent information on the current situation in Ukraine. Moreover, in assessing the risk of absconding, the Respondent asked improper questions. As such the Respondent's conduct violates principles of good governance.
The applicants’ removal from Sweden to Somalia would not expose them to a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 ECHR.
Three third country nationals applied for lawful residence in the Netherlands and sought access under the Directive 95/46 (the Data Protection Directive) to an official administrative document (a ‘minute’) containing legal analysis in relation to the decisions on their applications.
The CJEU found that the legal analysis in itself did not constitute ‘personal data’ within the meaning of the Directive and as such there had been no infringement of the applicants’ right of access to data. In addition, Article 41(2)(b) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that the applicant for a residence permit cannot rely on that provision against the national authorities, as it is not addressed to the Member States.
A member state cannot rely on the fact that there are no specialized detention facilities in a part of its territory to justify keeping non-citizens in prison pending their removal.
The CJEU ruled that it had no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred as they concerned the direct interpretation of the provisions of the 1951 Geneva Convention.
A member state cannot rely on the fact that there are no specialized detention facilities in a part of its territory to justify keeping non-citizens in prison pending their removal. The same rule applies even if the migration detainee has consented to being confined to prison.
A national law which requires the sponsor and his/her spouse to have reached the age of 21 by the date on which the application for family reunification is submitted (rather than by the date on which the decision on the application is made) is consistent with Art. 4 (5) of the Family Reunion Directive (Directive 2003/86/EC)
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that the procedure for examining applications for family reunification had to contain a number of elements, having regard to the applicants’ refugee status on the one hand and the best interests of the children on the other, so that their interests as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention from the point of view of procedural requirements were safeguarded.