Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Reset
CJEU - C-652/16, Nigyar Rauf Kaza Ahmedbekova, Rauf Emin Ogla Ahmedbekov v Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite
Country of applicant: Azerbaijan
Keywords: Individual assessment, Personal circumstances of applicant, Refugee Status, Political Opinion

CJEU rules on the correct processing of applications for international protection lodged separately by family members and the interrelationship between them.

Date of decision: 04-10-2018
Relevant International and European Legislation: European Union Law,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 7,Article 18,Article 47,EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,Article 2,Article 7,Article 33,Article 40,Article 46,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011,Recital (14),Article 2,Article 3,Article 4,Article 10,Article 12,Article 13,Article 15,Article 18,Article 23,Article 31
CJEU – Case C 175/17 X, 26 September 2018
Country of applicant: Iraq

The CJEU ruled on  the scope of the right to an effective remedy provided for in Article 39 of the Asylum Procedures Directive and in Article 13 of the Returns Directive.

Date of decision: 26-09-2018
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 3,Art 39,Recital 5,Art 33,Recital 8,Article 18,Article 19,Art 19.2,Article 47,Recital (2),Recital (4),Recital (24),Article 2,Article 3,Article 12,Article 13,Article 3,Article 13
CJEU – Case C 180/17, X and Y, 26 September 2018
Country of applicant: Russia
Keywords: Effective remedy (right to), Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Return

The CJEU ruled on  the scope of the right to an effective remedy provided for in Article 46 of the (Recast) Asylum Procedures Directive and in Article 13 of the Returns Directive.

Date of decision: 26-09-2018
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 33,Article 18,Article 19,Art 19.2,Article 47,Recital (12),Recital (60),Article 3,Article 46,Recital (2),Recital (4),Recital (24),Article 2,Article 3,Article 12,Article 13,Article 3,Article 13
Greece - Council of State, Fourth Section, Decision 805/2018, 17 April 2018
Keywords: Freedom of movement (right to)

The Court annulled the no. 10464/31.05.2017 Decision of the Director of the Asylum Service, on the basis of which, the restriction on the movement of applicants for international protection entering the Greek islands of Lesvos, Rhodes, Samos, Kos, Leros and Chios after the 20th of March 2016, was imposed. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the competent authority may not impose the contentious restriction on movement to applicants for international protection arriving in the Greek islands after the date of the publication of the judgment.

 

Date of decision: 17-04-2018
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,Art 1,Art 31,Art 26,European Union Law,International Law,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 6,Article 18,Article 51,Article 52,EN - Recast Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2013/33/EU of 26 June 2013,Article 3,Article 6,Article 7,Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010/C 83/01,Article 78
ECtHR - N.D. and N.T. v. Spain, Application Nos. 8675/15 and 8697/15, 3 October 2017
Country of applicant: Ivory Coast, Mali
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid, Procedural guarantees, Return

NB: the case was referred to the Grand Chamber, which issued a new ruling on 13 February 2020. For the EDAL summary of the final judgment, see here.

The continued and exclusive control of contracting State's authorities over individuals creates, at least, a de facto exercise of jurisdiction for the purposes of Article 1 ECHR. 

In light of Spain's jurisdiction over N.D. and N.T, who had attempted to cross the fences separating Morocco from Melilla, Spain was bound by the prohibition of collective expulsions under the Convention. A standardised response of removal to the applicants attempted entry to the Spanish territory without any identification procedure or administrative or judicial measure being first taken meant that the Spanish authorities had violated Article 4 Protocol 4 to the Convention. 
 
The collective expulsion of the applicants was clearly linked to their inability to access a national procedure which would satisfy Article 13 requirements.The applicants had, therefore, also been denied an effective and rigorous remedy which would allow them to contest the collective expulsion. 
Date of decision: 03-10-2017
Relevant International and European Legislation: European Union Law,Council of Europe Instruments,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 18,Article 19,Article 47,EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,Article 8,Article 9,Article 11,Article 12,EN - Returns Directive, Directive 2008/115/EC of 16 December 2008,Article 1,Article 2,Article 8,Article 12,Article 13,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 1,Article 13,Article 41,ECHR (Fourth Protocol),Art 4,Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010/C 83/01,EN - Treaty on European Union,Article 2,Article 6,Article 78
Greece - Council of State, Decision no. 2347/2017, 22 September 2017
Country of applicant: Syria
Keywords: First country of asylum, Individual assessment, Non-refoulement, Safe third country, Inadmissible application, Real risk, Individual threat
Date of decision: 22-09-2017
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 4,Article 18,Article 19,Article 46,Article 47,Article 52,Article 53,Article 14,Article 15,Article 17,Article 33,Article 35,Article 38,Article 4,Article 6,Article 7,Article 15,Article 21
CJEU - Joined Cases C-643/15 and C-647/15 Slovak Republic and Hungary v Council of the European Union, 6 September 2017
Keywords: Dublin Transfer

The Court of Justice of the European Union rejected the actions brought by Hungary and Slovakia seeking the annulment of the so-called “Relocation Decision”.

Date of decision: 06-09-2017
Relevant International and European Legislation: European Union Law,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 18,Article 21,EN - Dublin III Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No. 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 (recast Dublin II Regulation),Article 13,EN - Recast Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2013/33/EU of 26 June 2013,Article 9
UK - R (on the application of SG) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, also known as R (on the application of K) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, 22 June 2017
Country of applicant: Burundi
Keywords: Best interest of the child, Delay, Reception conditions, Material reception conditions

The reduction in the financial allowance available to child dependants of asylum seekers was not contrary to the requirement that the best interests of the child be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children.

Date of decision: 22-06-2017
Relevant International and European Legislation: European Union Law,International Law,Council of Europe Instruments,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 1,Article 18,Article 21,Article 24,EN - Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003,Recital (5),Recital (7),Article 1,Article 13,Article 17,Article 18,Article 24,2.,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 8,EN - Recast Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2013/33/EU of 26 June 2013,Recital (9),Recital (11),Recital (24),Recital (35),Article 1,Article 17,Article 21,Article 22,Article 23,Article 29,UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
Hungary - Administrative and Labour Court of Pécs, 25 February 2017, 8.K.27.195/2016/22
Country of applicant: Russia
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to)

The Court quashed the decision of the Office of Immigration and Nationality (OIN). The OIN based its decision on classified information obtained from the Constitutional Protection Office (CPO), which stated that the Applicant poses a threat to Hungary’s national security, and that he shall not be granted protection, with due regard to Article 1 f) c) of the Geneva Convention. The OIN failed to communicate the CPO’s opinion to the Applicant for nine months. The Court assessed that the proceedings were ‘exceptionally unlawful’.

Date of decision: 24-03-2017
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,Art 1F(c),Art 1F,European Union Law,International Law,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 18,Article 41,Article 47
CJEU - C-638/16 X and X, 7 March 2017
Country of applicant: Syria
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Procedural guarantees, Visa

The Syrian family's application for a Humanitarian Visa at the Belgian embassy in Lebanon fell outside the scope of the Visa Code, even if formally submitted on the basis of its Article 25(1)(a), because the purpose of the application (that is, to apply for asylum upon arrival to Belgium) differs from that of a short-term visa. 

Date of decision: 07-03-2017
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,Art 33,European Union Law,International Law,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 4,Article 18,EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,Article 3,EN - Dublin III Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No. 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 (recast Dublin II Regulation),Article 1,Article 3,Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010/C 83/01,EN - Treaty on European Union,Article 78