Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Reset
Italy - Tribunal of Trapani - Office of the Judge for Preliminary Investigations (Piero Grillo)
Country of applicant: Ghana, Sudan
Keywords: Detention, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Non-refoulement, Safe third country, Torture, Real risk

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. 

Date of decision: 23-05-2019
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,Article 4,Article 18,Article 19,Article 3,UN Convention against Torture,Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010/C 83/01
CJEU – Joined Cases C-391/16, C-77/17 and C-78/17, M (Révocation du statut de réfugié)
Country of applicant: Congo (DRC), Ivory Coast, Russia, Russia (Chechnya)
Keywords: Exclusion from protection, Non-refoulement, Revocation of protection status, Serious non-political crime, Refugee Status, Cessation of protection
The provisions of Article 14(4) to (6) of Directive 2011/95 cannot be interpreted as meaning that the effect of the revocation or the refusal of the refugee status is that the person concerned, who satisfies the material conditions set forth in Article 1A of the Geneva Convention, is excluded from international protection. Member States, when implementing Article 14(4) and (5) of the directive, are required to grant refugees who are present in their respective territories only the rights expressly referred to in Article 14(6) of that directive and the rights set out in the Geneva Convention that are guaranteed for any refugee who is present in the territory of a Contracting State and do not require a lawful stay.

Article 21(2) of the directive precludes Member States from issuing a measure of refoulement or expulsion against the persons covered by one of the scenarios described in Article 14(4) and (5) of Directive 2011/95 if this would expose the concerned persons to the risk of their fundamental rights as enshrined in Article 4 and Article 19(2) of the Charter of fundamental rights of the EU.

Date of decision: 14-05-2019
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 18,Article 2,Article 11,Article 12,Article 13,Article 14,Article 21,Article 24,Article 28,Article 34,Article 6,Article 78
CJEU - C-661/17 M.A & others, 23 January 2019
Keywords: Best interest of the child, Responsibility for examining application, Dublin Transfer

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)

Date of decision: 23-01-2019
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 4,Article 18,Article 47,Art 52.3,Article 3,Recital (1),Recital (2),Recital (3),Recital (4),Recital (5),Recital (13),Recital (14),Recital (15),Recital (16),Recital (17),Recital (19),Recital (32),Recital (39),Recital (41),Article 1,Article 3,Article 6,Article 7,Article 8,Article 11,Article 17,Article 20,Article 27,Article 29,Article 35,Article 78
ECtHR - M.A. and Others v. Lithuania (no. 59793/17), 11 December 2018
Country of applicant: Russia
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Indirect refoulement, Non-refoulement, Return

The ECtHR ruled that failure to allow a Russian family with five children to submit asylum applications on the Lithuanian border and their removal to Belarus amounted to a violation of Article 3 ECHR. 

Date of decision: 11-12-2018
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005,Recital 6,Art 1,Art 33,Art 31,European Union Law,International Law,Recital 8,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 18,Article 19,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011,Article 2,Article 15,Article 21
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