Case summaries

Applicant M was a citizen of Algeria who applied for a residence document in Finland on grounds of family relations. He/she was married to a sponsor called L and they had a joint minor child. L had another child from a previous marriage. A prerequisite for M to be granted a residence document was for him/her to have sufficient income, which he/she did not have. There was also the question of whether denying a residence document breached the Union citizen’s rights under Article 20 of the TFEU. The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that denying a residence document did not breach the Unio citizen’s rights. In addition, there were no factors which would support deviating from the means of support prerequisite as stated in the law.

A person in detention pending deportation has a fundamental right to receive visitors -including visits from journalists -and inhibiting this visiting right for the person in detention can be challenged by way of appeal to the Independent Administrative Senate. A journalist, on the other hand, who has been refused a visit to someone in deportation detention, does not have a right of appeal, amongst other things, because the information which could be provided by the person in deportation detentionis not publicly accessible and there is thus no state obligation under Art 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to facilitate access to this information by granting a visit to the person in deportation detention.

This case concerned an application for a licence for a civil marriage with a Greek citizen where there was an inability to provide a certificate of being unmarried or a birth certificate because of disrupted relationship with homeland and in the context of the submission of a sworn statement regarding the absence of any impediment to marriage. The case considered the balance between the safeguards of family law and a State's obligation to protect the fundamental rights of refugees. Under the principle of proportionality, the private and family life of the individual is inviolable, bearing in mind that the lack of evidence of being unmarried should not prevent the him from being granted a licence to enter into a civil marriage with his partner, the mother of their two minor children which he has already voluntarily recognised. It is possible to substitute in concreto the said evidence with a simple sworn statement and, therefore, the Applicant does satisfy the legal requirements for the granting of a marriage licence.

Owing to a violation of the right to respect for private life, the expulsion of the Applicants was declared permanently unlawful. On the grounds of Art 8 of the ECHR, the Asylum Court emphasised the significance of illnesses and their treatment (outside the context of Art 3 of the ECHR) in the host country and in doing so also referred to the disadvantagouss effects of the discontinuation of  psychotherapy by the applicant mother on the child. With reference to the best interest of the child, the Asylum Court made it clear that, in the case of children, roots to the host country could be developed more quickly than for adults, in particular if especially formative parts of childhood and young adolescence were spent in the host country.

Application from the Turkish Authorities to have the Greek Judicial Authorities issue an extradition notice against A.F., a Turkish citizen seeking asylum in Greece.

The Court ruled against the Turkish Authorities' extradition request, deciding that if the person in question were extradited to Turkey there would be a risk that her situation would be made worse because of her political beliefs and because of her pending application to have her refugee status recognised by the Greek state.

In principle both parents may claim the right to join an unaccompanied minor refugee.  

This right to join a child will only apply up until the point that the latter comes of age.

Parents may present a claim for a visa by means of an application for temporary legal protection before the child comes of age. 

Recalling the direct applicability of the Qualification Directive (Article 28, 29, recital 34), the Labour and Social Court of Vienna held that the refusal of a care allowance for beneficiaries of subsidary protection status was unlawful. The (minimum) core benefits to be granted to beneficiaries of subsidary protection status are to include at least support in the event of illness, whereby in accordance with Community law, the Austrian care allowance represented such support in the event of illness.

This judgment overturned the decision of the Polish Refugee Board on examination of a manifestly unfounded application, on refusal to accord refugee status, provide subsidiary protection or grant a permit for tolerated stay, and on deportation from the Republic of Poland

In the proceedings, the foreigner stressed that he had left his country of origin as a child and currently has no family there, and that his entire family resides legally in Poland (they were granted a permit for tolerated stay in refugee proceedings). As the decision on refusal of protection is linked to the decision on deportation, refusal of protection would result in the Applicant being unable to see his family for many years. Therefore, in the Applicant’s opinion, the decision on deportation constituted interference in his family life, since it would result in him being separated from his family.

The Court found that the authority should properly examine and address the allegations made by the Applicant and thus consider the foreigner’s individual and family circumstances in the context of the possible application of Article 8 of the Convention, including the length of his stay in Poland, the possible obstacles to him living in his country of origin, and the likely effects on the Applicant’s family if the family was to be separated by the Applicant moving to another country.

This inadmissibility decision concerned the transfer of Mrs. Hussein and her children to Italy from the Netherlands under the Dublin II Regulation. The Court found the applicant’s complaints under Article 3 ECHR and Article 13 ECHR as manifestly unfounded within the meaning of Article 35(3)(a) of the Convention. The Court found that though there were shortcomings in Italy it did not disclose systemic failures to provide support for asylum seekers there. 

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.