Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Reset
Austria - Constitutional Court, 14 March 2012, U466/11 ua
Country of applicant: China

The Constitutional Court presents its opinion on the nature of the rights and principles contained in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union(CFRU) and on jurisdiction for the decision on questions of interpretation in connection with the CFRU. It gave an answer in the affirmative to the question of whether the CFRU, in particular Article 47 CFRU, is applicable in asylum proceedings if no such violation was found in the actual case at hand.

Date of decision: 14-03-2012
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 12,Article 47,Article 51,Article 52,Article 53,Article 6,Article 8,Article 13
Austria - Asylum Court, 24 February 2011, A4 213316-0/2008
Country of applicant: Egypt

An Egyptian transgender woman, who first underwent gender reassignment surgery and hormone treatment in Austria, was recognised as a refugee as it was accepted that there were problems with the police,  a refusal to issue her a passport using her new personal data and social issues of an intensity relevant to asylum matters.

Date of decision: 24-02-2011
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 4.3,Art 7,Art 10,Art 5,Art 6,Art 4.4,Art 12.2
Sweden - Migration Court of Appeal, 3 December 2009, UM 4081-09
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

If re-examination of a case under the Aliens Act Chapter 12 Section 19 (provides for re-examination of a claim on the presentation of information supporting a need for international protection) has been granted, the Migration Board cannot deny a residence permit without an oral healing having been held.

Date of decision: 03-12-2009
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 12.1,Art 32.3,Art 32.4,Art 2 (b),Art 12.2 (c),Art 32.2 (b)
ECtHR - K.R.S. v the United Kingdom, Application no. 32733/08 (decision on admissibility), 2 December 2008
Country of applicant: Iran

The applicant challenged his transfer to Greece from the UK under the Dublin II Regulation, on the basis that the situation for asylum seekers in Greece would lead to a violation of Article 3 ECHR. The Court declared the application manifestly ill-founded and therefore inadmissible, as it was presumed that Greece would comply with its obligations and would not refoule him to his county of origin Iraq. 

Date of decision: 02-12-2008
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005,Art 39,Art 10,Art 9,Art 12,Art 15,Art 7,European Union Law,Art 21,EN - Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003,EN - Dublin II Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003,Article 3,2.,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 3,Article 13,Article 34
Austria - Administrative Court, 17 April 2007, 2006/19/0675
Country of applicant: Russia

Traumatised people and those who have suffered otherwise psychologically and physically from flight behave differently when giving evidence compared with healthy people. This can mean that the full submissions relevant to asylum are not provided at the start of the proceedings or the traumatisation itself is not mentioned. These circumstances are to be taken into account during the ban on new evidence.

Date of decision: 17-04-2007
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 4,Art 8,Art 25,Art 12,Art 11,2.,Article 13,Article 16,Article 13
Czech Republic - Supreme Administrative Court, 24 February 2004, Y.A. v Ministry of Interior, 6 Azs 50/2003-89
Country of applicant: Iran

If any fact emerges during the interview, which indicates that the applicant could be persecuted for exercising his political rights and freedoms, or has a well-founded fear of being persecuted on the grounds upon which asylum can be granted, the Ministry of Interior obliged to conduct the interview in a way that would achieve an outcome which is sufficiently clear for the needs of considering the asylum claim. It is also necessary to evaluate the way in which state power is exercised in the country of origin, and the real possibility of exercising one’s political rights and other circumstances that could establish grounds for international protection.

Date of decision: 24-02-2004
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005,Art 4,Art 12,Art 33,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 3