Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Reset
UK - High Court, Hashemi, R (on the application of) v The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) & Anor, [2013] EWHC 2316 (Admin)
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

This case concerns a child asylum applicant who had his appeal against refusal of asylum considered after he had turned 18, and thus had become an adult. He complained that this breached Article 39 of the Procedures Directive (effective remedy).

Date of decision: 31-07-2013
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 23.2,Art 4,Recital 1,Art 39,Art 13,Art 23,Recital 27,Art 17,Art 23.1,Art 23.2,Art 39,Recital 13,Recital 8,Recital 14,Art 39.1 (a),Art 39.1 (e),3.,UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
Slovenia - Administrative Court of the Republic of Slovenia, 28 March 2013, I U 1675/2012
Country of applicant: Tunisia

In the present case certain formal conditions for dismissing the application through an accelerated procedure as defined in Article 54 of International Protection Act (ZMZ) were not taken into account. The Ministry of the Internal (MI) did not take a stance as regards the circumstances that the Applicant claimed as the grounds for leaving his country of origin and applying for international protection.

Date of decision: 28-03-2013
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 15,Art 23.1,Article 3
Ireland - High Court, 25 January 2011, T.D., N.D. and A.D. v Minister for Justice 2011 IEHC 37
Country of applicant: South Africa

This case involved a challenge to the transposition of the Procedures Directive into Irish domestic law which appeared to be barred by a special time limitation period of 14 days applicable to challenges to asylum/deportation decisions. The Court found that a Member State is entitled to apply a national limitation period even in respect of those cases where the Member State in question has failed properly to transpose the relevant Directive, provided that the limitation period complies with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness. The Court found that the strict 14 day time limit provided for in section 5 of the Illegal Immigrants Trafficking Act, 2000, is not equivalent to the limitation period for judicial reviews in other broadly similar areas (generally 6 months) and is not effective because it is so short a time. In the circumstances, the limitation period could not be pleaded or relied upon against the applicants. 

Date of decision: 25-01-2011
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005,Art 39,Recital 11,Art 23.1,Art 23.2,Art 23.3,Art 23.4,Recital 27