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 36/20 PPU, V.L. v Spain, 25 June 2020
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Detention

The CJEU found that the judge assigned to rule upon the applicant’s detention should have transmitted his request for international protection to the competent authority so it could be registered, and the applicant could enjoy his rights provided by Directive 2013/33. It also found that he should not have been detained since he was protected by his applicant for international protection’s status under Directives 2013/33 and 2013/32.

Date of decision: 25-06-2020
Relevant International and European Legislation: Recital (8),Recital (18),Recital (20),Recital (25),Recital (26),Article 2,Article 6,Article 26,Recital (9),Article 2,Recital (15),Recital (20),Article 8,Article 9,Article 17
Germany – Federal Administrative Court, 11 July 2018, BVerwG 1 C 18.17
Country of applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Delay, Effective remedy (right to), Personal interview, Procedural guarantees

The Federal Administrative Court has to clarify whether the petition for action directed solely at the obligation to decide on the asylum application is admissible. The question if it is also possible to directly oblige the defendant to grant international protection or to establish prohibitions on deportation by means of an action is not the subject of the decision. As a result, the court comes to the conclusion that there was a delay by the respondent of providing the decision on the asylum application without sufficient reason and that the plaintiff has a need for legal protection for its action for failure to act.

Date of decision: 11-07-2018
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 39.1,Art 4,Art 17,Recital 11,Art 2,Art 2 (e),Art 14.2,Art 13,Recital 13,Art 12.2,Article 47,Recital (18),Recital (25),Article 2,Article 4,Article 14,Article 15,Article 17,Article 31,Article 46,Article 51,Recital 10,Art 4.3,Art 12.4,Art 13.1,Art 13.2,Art 13.3,Art 17.4 (b),Art 23.2 (b),Article 4
Slovenia - Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, 15 October 2015, judgment U-I-U-I-189/14, Up-663/14
Country of applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Circumstances ceased to exist, Effective remedy (right to), Non-refoulement, Relevant Facts, Subsidiary Protection

Termination of an applicant’s international protection status (ie where there is a change or termination of protection grounds) must be examined against the principle of non-refoulement, which ensures the right to a fair and efficient procedure in which the Asylum authority assesses if non-refoulement would be violated where protection ceases.

It results from the principle of non-refoulement that the applicant in proceedings on termination of subsidiary protection must have the possibility to state all the reasons for which subsidiary protection should not cease.

In the process of renewal of subsidiary protection all the guarantees provided by Article 18 of the Constitution (Prohibition of Torture) should be respected.

Legislation which limited the assessment of the competent authority in the subsidiary protection renewal procedure only to the grounds based on which an individual has been granted subsidiary protection, is inconsistent with the right set out in Article 18 of the Constitution.

Date of decision: 15-10-2015
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,Art 33,European Union Law,International Law,Council of Europe Instruments,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 19,EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,Recital (25),Article 2,Article 44,Article 45,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 3,Article 13,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011,Article 11,Article 16,Article 19
ECtHR - Georgia v Russia, Application no 13255/07, 3 July 2014
Country of applicant: Georgia
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Detention, Effective remedy (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Nationality, Discrimination, Return

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.

Date of decision: 03-07-2014
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,ECHR (Frist Protocol),Art 2,European Union Law,International Law,Council of Europe Instruments,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 4,Article 19,Article 21,EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,Recital (25),Recital (38),Recital (42),Recital (50),Article 20,Article 25,Article 36,EN - Returns Directive, Directive 2008/115/EC of 16 December 2008,Article 13,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 2,Article 3,Article 5,Article 8,Article 13,Article 14,Article 18,Article 35,Article 38,EN - Dublin III Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No. 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 (recast Dublin II Regulation),Article 27,ECHR (Fourth Protocol),Art 4,Art 1