Case summaries
The right to court, which includes the principle of contradictoriness and its essential element – the possibility to get acquainted with the information in possession of the authority or the court – is not a value overriding other values protected by the national legal order.
Such an understanding is reflected in EU law – Article 13 para 1 of the Returns Directive.
In the opinion of the Court it is not inconsistent with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, bearing in mind Article 52 para. 1.
Disclosing concrete information gathered by a specialised agency, responsible for state security, enables identification of the source of information, so it can pose a threat to other persons or even exclude the possibility of obtaining any further relevant information.
In this situation, taking into account the need to protect state security there are limitations which impact upon the procedural rights of a person. However these are justifiable on account of public interest.
The Respondent erred in detaining the Applicant under § 88a (1)(a) point 1 of Act No 404/2011 Coll. on the residence of aliens and amending certain other Acts in proceedings relating to administrative expulsion to the Ukraine, despite being aware of the Applicant’s intention to apply for asylum. The Respondent also incorrectly assessed whether Ukraine is a safe third country as he failed to take into account recent information on the current situation in Ukraine. Moreover, in assessing the risk of absconding, the Respondent asked improper questions. As such the Respondent's conduct violates principles of good governance.
Three third country nationals applied for lawful residence in the Netherlands and sought access under the Directive 95/46 (the Data Protection Directive) to an official administrative document (a ‘minute’) containing legal analysis in relation to the decisions on their applications.
The CJEU found that the legal analysis in itself did not constitute ‘personal data’ within the meaning of the Directive and as such there had been no infringement of the applicants’ right of access to data. In addition, Article 41(2)(b) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that the applicant for a residence permit cannot rely on that provision against the national authorities, as it is not addressed to the Member States.
A member state cannot rely on the fact that there are no specialized detention facilities in a part of its territory to justify keeping non-citizens in prison pending their removal.
The CJEU ruled that it had no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred as they concerned the direct interpretation of the provisions of the 1951 Geneva Convention.
A member state cannot rely on the fact that there are no specialized detention facilities in a part of its territory to justify keeping non-citizens in prison pending their removal. The same rule applies even if the migration detainee has consented to being confined to prison.
Ouseley J in the High Court held although the practice and policy of the Secretary of State in operating the Detained Fast Track System (DFT) was not unlawful in its terms, there was room for improvement. The screening process must not only focus on the suitability of a claim for fast-tracking, but it must also consider the impact that a tight timetable and detention may have on the fair presentation of a claim. In addition, lawyers must be allocated to applicants earlier to allow for meaningful instructions to be given and to allow for vulnerable status to be highlighted. Falling short of unlawfulness, the system carried too high a risk that unfair determinations would be made against applicants.
The ECtHR holds that Russia is in violation of Article 5 ECHR and of Article 4 of Protocol 4 through the implementation of an unlawful administrative practice against a large number of Georgian nationals as a means of identifying them. This led to the arrest, detention and collective expulsion of 4634 Georgians from the Russian Federation and further violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.
The case concerns the interpretation of Directive 2004/83 and clarifies that the Irish legislation requiring seekers of international protection to follow two separate procedural stages: application for refugee status, and in case of refusal, application for subsidiary protection, is not contrary to EU law if the two applications can be introduced at the same time and if the application for subsidiary protection is considered within a reasonable period of time.
The right to good administration includes the right of any person to have his or her affairs handled impartially and within a reasonable period of time.
The provisions of the Asylum Procedures Directive have been fully transposed into the CESEDA. A decision of the OFPRA based on all the documents/ evidence submitted by the applicant in support of his subsequent application without an interview does not infringe Article 41(2) of the Charter. When OFPRA considered the subsequent application, it was legitimate for it to have rejected the application without any interview since the new documents/ evidence provided were without merits. The Court found that M.A’s application must be rejected without any need to re-examine the facts he submitted, including those in his first application. The application of M.A was rejected.