Case summaries

The Judge of liberty and detention of the Toulouse Appeal Court considered that an extension of the applicant’s administrative detention could mean subjecting her to imminent forcible return to her country of origin, which was not compatible with articles 3 and 13 ECHR since a non-suspensive appeal against a decision rejecting the applicant’s asylum application was still pending and with sufficient grounds.

As a result, the Judge held that there was no reason to extend the duration of the applicant’s administrative detention.

The Judge of liberty and detention of the Toulouse Appeal Court considered that an extension of the applicant’s administrative detention would mean subjecting her to imminent forcible return to her country of origin, which was not compatible with articles 3 and 13 ECHR since an appeal against a decision rejecting the applicant’s asylum application was still pending and with sufficient grounds.

As a result, the Judge held that there was no reason to extend the duration of the applicant’s administrative detention.

Article 17 forms an integral part of the Dublin Regulation and should be applied in a manner which furthers the aims and objectives of the Regulation in general. Article 17 is a justiciable right and should be particularly relied upon in circumstances where one of the overarching values of the Dublin Regulation, namely expedition, is not being fulfilled in the procedures of the host Member State. Article 17 is not subject to a prior assessment of non-satisfaction of Article 8 (family reunification) of that same Regulation.

Applicants who engaged with Dublin authorities should be subjected to less onerous standards when assessing the success of an Article 8 ECHR claim.

The UK Upper Tribunal held that there had been a failure of the Secretary of State to lawfully exercise the discretion conferred by Article 17 of the Dublin Regulation and ordered the Secretary of State to admit the applicant to the UK, based on: (1) the deficiencies of the Italian asylum system in the present case, namely the lack of sufficient expedition to register the asylum application and initiate Dublin proceedings; (2) the deficiencies and delay in the guardianship system in Italy; (3) the expected lengthy procedures for a “take charge” request and subsequent Dublin transfer; (4) the need to take into account the best interests of children.

Lack of prompt investigation of ill-treatment complaints may amount to a procedural violation of Article 3 ECHR. Detention conditions should follow certain standards and individuals should be kept in suitable establishments with enough allocated space.

Article 3 of the ECHR imposes an absolute obligation on contracting States not to deport an asylum seeker where doing so would expose him or her to a genuine and serious risk of violence. Under the discretionary clause in Article 17(1) of the Dublin III Regulation, this remains the case where the application does not fall within the immediate responsibilities of that State.

The Court finds that forced labour constitutes one form of exploitation subsumed by the definition of trafficking, as is clearly shown in Article 4a) of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings.

The positive obligations under Article 4(2) of the ECHR must be interpreted in light of the Council of Europe Convention and the manner in which it has been interpreted by the Council of Europe's Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. Contracting States have three positive obligations under Article 4(2):

a)       an appropriate legal and regulatory framework for the criminalisation of human trafficking;

b)      operational measures on the prevention of human trafficking and the protection of victims’ rights

c)      an effective investigation and judicial procedure.

The application of S.C. and her minor children Z.C. and F.C. related to the cassation of an Appeal Court judgement regarding compensation for the harm they suffered as a result of an indisputably unjust decision to place the Applicants in a Guarded Detention Centre for Foreigners. The Supreme Court reversed the challenged judgement and passed the case to the Appeal Court for re-consideration. 

It is not reasonably likely that a draft-evader would face criminal/administrative proceedings in Ukraine but there is a real risk that a person sentenced to imprisonment in Ukraine would be detained on arrival there and that detention conditions would breach Article 3 ECHR.

The Court of Appeal in this case focused on two main questions: 

1) To what extent is the decision-maker on an application for international protection obliged to investigate the authenticity of documents relied upon by the applicant in those cases where here credibility is challenged; and

2) Whether sufficient steps were taken to ensure that the documentary materials provided by the applicant were in fact proven to be authentic. 

Even where there are no substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws in the Member State responsible, a Dublin transfer can only be carried out in conditions which exclude the possibility that that transfer might result in a real and proven risk of the person concerned suffering inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 CFR EU.

If there is a real and proven risk that the state of health of an applicant who suffers from a serious mental or physical illness would significantly and permanently deteriorate, that transfer would constitute a violation of Article 4 CFR EU.

It is for the courts and authorities of the requesting Member State to eliminate any serious doubts concerning the impact of the transfer on the health of the person concerned by taking all necessary precaution. If the taking of precautions is not sufficient, it is for the authorities of the Member State concerned to suspend the execution of the transfer for as long as the applicant’s conditions render him unfit for transfer.

Member States may choose to conduct its own examination of that person’s application by making use of the “discretionary clause” laid down in Article 17(1) DRIII, but is not required to do so.