Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Reset
France - Administrative Court of Appeal of Metz, 26 November 2019, N° RG 19/00909
Country of applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Benefit of doubt, Burden of proof, Detention, Effective remedy (right to), Freedom of movement (right to), Personal interview, Relevant Documentation

The administrative detention of an Afghan national was imposed on the basis of a procedural error due  to the lack of relevant documentation and unjustified information by the French authorities (Prefect and Prosecutor).

Date of decision: 26-11-2019
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 26,Article 45,Article 47,Article 20,Article 40,Article 46,Article 13,Article 4,Article 14,Article 19
Greece - Council of State, Fourth Section, Decision 805/2018, 17 April 2018
Keywords: Freedom of movement (right to)

The Court annulled the no. 10464/31.05.2017 Decision of the Director of the Asylum Service, on the basis of which, the restriction on the movement of applicants for international protection entering the Greek islands of Lesvos, Rhodes, Samos, Kos, Leros and Chios after the 20th of March 2016, was imposed. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the competent authority may not impose the contentious restriction on movement to applicants for international protection arriving in the Greek islands after the date of the publication of the judgment.

 

Date of decision: 17-04-2018
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,Art 1,Art 31,Art 26,European Union Law,International Law,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 6,Article 18,Article 51,Article 52,EN - Recast Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2013/33/EU of 26 June 2013,Article 3,Article 6,Article 7,Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010/C 83/01,Article 78
CJEU - Joined Cases C‑443/14 and C‑444/14, Kreis Warendorf v Ibrahim Alo and Amira Osso v Region Hannover
Country of applicant: Syria
Keywords: Freedom of movement (right to), Subsidiary Protection, Refugee Status, Integration measures

Article 33 of the Qualification Directive, read in conjunction with the Geneva Convention, requires Member States to allow persons to whom they have granted subsidiary protection status not only to move freely within their territory but also to choose their place of residence within that territory.  However, the Directive does not prevent beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status from being subject to a residence condition for the purpose of promoting their integration where said group of persons are not in a comparable situation as non-EU citizens. 

Date of decision: 01-03-2016
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,Art 32,Art 26,European Union Law,International Law,Art 23,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011,Recital (3),Recital (4),Recital (6),Recital (8),Recital (9),Recital (16),Recital (23),Recital (24),Recital (33),Recital (39),Article 20,Article 29,Article 32,Article 33
Greece - Council of State, 17 July 2006, Application No. 700/2006
Country of applicant: Armenia
Keywords: Freedom of movement (right to), Obligation/Duty to cooperate, Accommodation centre, Obligation to give reasons

The provisions regarding the establishment and operation of Refugee Centres do not constitute a basis for ordering foreigners to stay in the said Centres, under penalty of having the asylum application procedure halted, on the sole ground that the police authorities consider their applications for asylum to be manifestly unfounded. The Refugee Centres were not established as centres where foreigners would be obliged to live – under penalty of halting the process of examining their applications for leave to remain – until the process had been completed, if those foreigners wish to and are able to stay elsewhere during the procedure, unless the Administration states that the measure is necessary for a specific and fully justified reason of public interest.

Date of decision: 17-06-2006
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 1A (2),Art 9.2,Art 18,Art 26,Art 11.1,1.,2.,3.,Art 1A (1),Art 31.2
UK - Court of Appeal, 26 July 2002, El-Ali v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 1103
Country of applicant: Lebanon, Palestinian Territory
Keywords: Exclusion from protection
Art 1D of the 1951 Refugee Convention only applies to Palestinians who met two criteria. First of all, they had to have been in receipt of United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (“UNRWA”) protection or assistance on or before 28 July 1951 which was the date that the Convention was adopted. Secondly, whilst UNRWA’s mandate continued, if such Palestinians had left UNRWA’s field of operation they would have to show that they were in “exceptional circumstance”; for example if they were prevented from returning to UNRWA’s field of operation.
Date of decision: 26-07-2002
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,Art 12,Art 28,Art 1,Art 3,Art 32,Art 33,Art 31,Art 4,Art 16,Art 22,Art 2,Art 13,Art 15,Art 17,Art 21,Art 24,Art 26,Art 27