Case summaries

The Foreigners and Borders Service (SEF) appealed against the judgment of the Administrative Court of Sintra, which had upheld the application for annulment of the order of the National Director of SEF - holding that the application for asylum made by the defendant was inadmissible and held that Italy was the State responsible for taking back the applicant - and had ordered SEF to admit, process and assess the applicant's claim, with a final decision.

The Central Administrative Court of the South dismissed the appeal, confirming the contested decision on the ground of a real and proven risk of the applicant suffering cruel, degrading or inhuman treatment.

The State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) must carry out an individualised examination to determine whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the asylum procedure of the Member State where the applicant shall be transferred to has systemic weaknesses that would entail a risk of inhuman treatment or chain deportation.

The Court recognised self-defence in a case where migrants were charged with assault against a police officer following their rescue at sea and their impending return to Libya. Their well-founded fear of return to Libya provided the basis for their defence of duress. 

The transfer of a family to the previous country of entry (Bulgaria), which might entail the risk of refoulement to the country of origin (Afghanistan), would cause an irreversible and serious harm; it ordered the suspension of the transfer decision until the final decision, on the annulment of the rejection of the application on the refugee status, was issued.

The Court decides that Greece is responsible for the examination of the applicant’s claim for international protection. The Court does not find that asylum procedures in Greece are flawed and that the applicant will be exposed to inhuman and degrading reception conditions. Moreover, neither the fact that the applicant’s sister is living in Germany nor the purpose of medical and psychological support in a Member State entitles the applicant under the Dublin Regulation to choose which country will examine his application for international protection.

The notification about the intention of withdrawal from the EU by the Member-State responsible for the examination of the application for international protection does not trigger the determining Member-State’s obligation to make use of the discretionary clause of Article 17(1) 604/2013 EU. Similarly, Article 6 (1) cannot be interpreted as imposing an obligation on the Member State that is not responsible to take into account the best interests of the child and to examine the application itself under 17 (1)

The Court decides that a beneficiary of international protection cannot be deported to a country in which the individual concerned faces a serious risk of inhumane or degrading treatment. The risk of destitution after deportation is only excluded when the receiving state authorities provide a specific, and not just a general, assurance to the individual concerned.

Pursuant to Section 60 paragraph 5 of the Residence Act, refugees recognised abroad cannot be deported to the state in which they are recognised if the living conditions expected there contradict Article 3 of the ECHR. This presupposes that the situation in the country of destination reaches the minimum severity required for Article 3 ECHR, but an "extreme danger" within the meaning of the case-law regarding Section 60 paragraph 7 sentence 5 Residence Act is not a prerequisite.

A Syrian citizen who has been recognised as a refugee in Bulgaria cannot be deported to Bulgaria because of the degrading living conditions awaiting him there.

The Court considered that the decision-maker should have had taken into consideration the applicant’s alleged vulnerable situation, and as a result ordered the case’s remittal to the Central Administrative Court of Lisbon so evidence could be collected on this.