Case summaries

The internal protection alternative is not only possible when the security situation in the proposed area is so poor that the threshold of serious harm would be met, but also when the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to settle down in a designated area. In order to establish the latter it is not enough to hypothetically assume that the applicant can arrange the housing by himself and take care of his social and economic security or that as a young man he could find work and survive. It is necessary to determine whether in the place of IPA, economic and social existence is assured at least to the extent that the threshold for a violation of Article 3 of the Convention is not met.  

A Member State is responsible for the asylum application of an unaccompanied minor if the minor does not have a family member in said Member State and the minor's application has been finally rejected in another Member State, provided that the unaccompanied minor resides in the relevant Member State.

The responsibility for examining an application does not cease to apply upon the mere acceptance of a request to take charge by another Member State.

The applicant’ s description of a situation which gives rise to a risk to his life or physical integrity, deriving from gender-based violence, social or religious group violence, family/domestic violence, which is accepted, tolerated or not tackled by the State, imposes an ex proprio motu further investigation upon the Judiciary. The latter entails an investigation into the control of  violence described by the applicant in terms of whether it is widespread, whether there is impunity for the acts as well as the State’s response

When verifying an asylum seeker’s claimed sexual orientation, Member States’ freedom of action is constrained by the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The evaluation of an asylum application should not be based on stereotyped notions and should include an individualised assessment taking into account the applicant’s personal circumstances, vulnerability in particular.

Not declaring homosexuality at the outset to the relevant authorities can not result in a conclusion that the individual’s declaration lacks credibility.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court found that the conflict in Ukraine is not an armed conflict as defined in the provisions  relating to the grant of subsidiary protection. Even if the applicant was attacked by some persons he did not know, his obligation was to seek assistance in his country of origin, even if obtaining assistance would seem illusory and not realistic.

Granting refugee status is not justified by the living conditions or economic situation of the applicant, but only by the existing fear of persecutions in the country of origin. The state and regional authorities help internally displaced persons (IDPs) in organizing a new life undertake all efforts to ensure housing and assistance to IDPs from the southern and eastern part of the country in western and central Ukraine

This CJEU ruling concerned the interpretation of Article 6 of Directive 2008/115/EC (‘the Return Directive’) in relation to the right to be heard prior to a return decision being made, to return illegally staying third-country nationals.

It was found that where the national authority had explicitly provided for the obligation to leave national territory in cases of illegal stay in its national legislation and the third-country national had properly been heard in the context of the procedure for examining his/her right to stay; the right to be heard did not require the applicant to be given an additional opportunity to present observations prior to the issue of a return decision. 

This case examined the compatibility of the Dublin II Regulation with the European Convention on Human Rights regarding transfers to Italy under the Dublin II Regulation.

The Court found a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights if the Swiss authorities were to send an Afghan couple and their six children back to Italy under the Dublin Regulation without having first obtained individual guarantees from the Italian authorities that the applicants would be taken charge of in a manner adapted to the age of the children and that the family would be kept together.

The case examines allegations of the indiscriminate expulsion of foreign nationals from Italy to Greece who had no access to asylum procedures and who subsequently feared deportation to their countries of origin. In regards to four of the applicants, the Court held that Greece violated Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or regarding treatment).  It also held that Italy violated Articles 13 and 3 as well as Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens.)

The possibility of submitting evidence for assessment is a basic procedural guarantee. Thus, if the party’s argumentation is based on defined circumstances, essential for his/her case, the responsible authority should hear witnesses and get acquainted with the evidence gathered within asylum proceedings handled by relevant authorities in another EU Member State.  

The Court ruled that under national law the authorities are obliged to issue a decision on discontinuing the procedure if another Member State is responsible for the application. The provision leaves no margin of discretion. The authorities had no obligation to examine the way that the other State treats asylum seekers, if it is a Member State of the EU and applies European standards of dealing with third country nationals.

In the situation where the other State decided to accept the responsibility and examine the application, it should be understood that they examined its admissibility in the light of the Dublin II Regulation, taking into account the time that the applicant spent away from that State.