Case summaries

This CJEU ruling concerned the interpretation of Article 6 of Directive 2008/115/EC (‘the Return Directive’) in relation to the right to be heard prior to a return decision being made, to return illegally staying third-country nationals.

It was found that where the national authority had explicitly provided for the obligation to leave national territory in cases of illegal stay in its national legislation and the third-country national had properly been heard in the context of the procedure for examining his/her right to stay; the right to be heard did not require the applicant to be given an additional opportunity to present observations prior to the issue of a return decision. 

The Council of State denied the Applicants’ appeal against the decision made by the Board of the Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) to include Georgia and the Republic of Albania in the list of safe countries of origin because, amongst other things, these countries are democratic institutions and are parties to the ECHR.

The Council of State granted the Applicants’ appeal against the decision made by the Board of OFPRA to include the Republic of Kosovo in the list of safe countries of origin because, amongst other things, the country’s political and social contexts were unstable and some segments of the population were subject to violence without sufficient police protection.

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. 

An action for annulment before the Council for Alien Law Litigation was not an effective remedy. The Law of 15 March 2012 limiting the remedy against a decision rejecting an asylum application to an action for annulment when the Applicant came from a safe country of origin, whereas other applicants were able to seek a ‘full-remedy action’, breached the principle of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in Articles 10 and 11 of the Belgian Constitution. The said Law was therefore repealed by the Constitutional Court.

Processing an appeal without a hearing, on application of Article 91(2) of the Foreigners Act (2000), is not in breach of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

The contested judgment is unconstitutional as it does not provide a clear way of assessing the jurisdiction of the third country when dealing with the application. It also reveals that the situation of the Applicant for international protection is unclear in the event that the application is rejected by the third country and the Applicant is not allowed to enter its territory, and shows that it is unclear as to what the Applicant can contest in this procedure.

An efficient legal system that would stop the extradition to a country in which the Applicant could be exposed to inhuman treatment has to have suspensive effect.

This ruling concerned the scope of judicial review when reviewing compliance with the criterion of Article 10(1) for determining responsibility for examining an asylum application under Regulation 343/2003. The Court held that Art. 19(2) of the Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances where a Member State has agreed to take charge of an applicant for asylum on the basis of the Art. 10(1) criterion the only way in which the applicant for asylum can call into question the choice of that criterion is by pleading systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and in the conditions for the reception of applicants for asylum in that Member State, which provide substantial grounds for believing that the applicant for asylum would face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Art. 4 of the Charter.

The Asylum Court violated the right of access to the courts by rejecting an appeal in a case where an application for family reunification had been submitted at an Embassy. The asylum authorities acted arbitrarily in assuming that there was no legal entitlement to a formal notification of the decision in writing on such an application.

The ban on the introduction of new matters in appeal proceedings as stipulated in the Asylum Act does not violate the right of access to the courts contained in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as it represents a proportional restriction.

This case related to a dispute as to whether the UK or Belgium had responsibility for determining the applicant’s asylum claim