Case summaries
Article 48 para. 3 sentence 2 and 3 AufenthG does not offer a suitable legal basis for the search of homes.
The issue of a search warrant according to police and public order law requires concrete evidence that certain documents could be detected. The violation of the obligation to cooperate according to § 48 para. 3 sentence 1 AufenthG (refusal of the applicant to obtain a passport or similar), as well as vaguely expressed doubts of the authorities about the passport loss, are not sufficient to issue a warrant for the search of homes. Such a search warrant is in any case not proportionate if the probability of detection is low.
The detention of children is, in principle, permitted under Article 5 ECHR for the shortest amount of time, in appropriate conditions and facilities, and only after the Government has correctly concluded that less coercive measures are unavailable.
The complaint of the applicants under Article 3 are manifestly unfounded.
The standardised nature of the questions to the applicants and similarities in the responses recorded do not necessarily indicate a lack of individualised assessment. The applicants were not deprived of an opportunity to submit arguments against their expulsion and did not make any claim of persecution risks in their country of origin. No collective expulsion under Article 4 Protocol 4 has been established.
Similarly, no violation of Article 4 Protocol 4 in conjunction with Article 13 has been established, as the claim cannot be considered arguable.
Germany is responsible for the asylum determination of an oppositional Turkish applicant under Art. 3 para. 2 subparas 2 and 3 Dublin III Regulation, because in this individual case the Bulgarian asylum procedure has systemic flaws that would entail a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. A serious examination of the asylum application cannot be expected by the Bulgarian authorities and the authorities will likely return the applicant to Turkey. In such a case, there are reasonable grounds for believing that there would be a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights due to the complainant’s own or family member’s opposition activities.
Given the emergency of the situation, family reunification could only be refused in circumstances where the relevant individual does not comply with principles of public order.
As a result, the Court concluded that there were serious doubts as to the legality of the decisions refusing family reunification.
An application for a revision of a final court decision of the Swiss Federal Court is only admissible if the applicant presents new relevant facts or evidence which he was not able to provide in previous proceedings even if he had acted with due diligence.
If the new evidence relates to another person’s hearing files (in the case at hand a relative’s hearing protocol before the Swiss asylum authority) the fact that the files could not be retrieved during the proceedings cannot be attributed to the applicant if he lacked the required consent from the person concerned to access the files. By rule of principle, it is the asylum authority’s duty to consult relevant documents for the assessment of an application which is notably the case for statements made by family relatives if the factual circumstances on which the respective applications are based are closely related.
The parents and minor siblings of a Syrian national, who was recognised as a refugee, cannot claim refugee status in terms of international protection for family members, if the beneficiary, although a minor when he was registered as an asylum applicant, was no longer a minor at the time of the court hearing.
In a case of an asylum application on the grounds of gender based persecution, supported by medical reports, the Belgian Council of State held that it belongs to the asylum authorities to investigate the origin of injuries, whose nature and seriousness imply a presumption of treatment contrary to article 3 ECHR and to assess the risks they reveal.
Without this assessment, the judge cannot legally conclude that the Applicant does not establish that he has been persecuted or has suffered serious harm or been subjected to direct threats of such persecution or harm.
The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the removal of families belonging to the Sikh religious minority to Afghanistan would not constitute a violation of Article 3 ECHR, as the applicants’ situation failed to reach the severity threshold required by this Article. Despite the fact that the Sikh community suffers from intimidation and intolerance within the Afghan society, the Court did not find that this group is the target of a practice of a systematic practice of ill-treatment, despite any difficulties they may be facing in the country.
The fact that many Uighurs who have returned to China have been detained in “re-education camps”, or have otherwise faced the risk of imprisonment and ill-treatment, combined with the applicants’ individual circumstances, establishes substantial grounds to believe that the applicants would be at real risk of arbitrary detention, and inhuman treatment, or even death, if they were removed to their country of origin.
If implemented, the applicants’ removal to China would be in breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR.