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‑670/16, Tsegezab Mengesteab v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Country of applicant: Eritrea
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Dublin Transfer

Article 27(1) of the Dublin Regulation is to be interpreted as meaning that an applicant for international protection may rely, in the context of an action brought against a decision to transfer him, on the expiry of a period laid down in Article 21(1) of that regulation, even if the requested Member State is willing to take charge of that applicant.

The two-month period for submitting a take charge request where there has been a Eurodac hit is not cumulative with the general three-month period for take charge requests.

An application for international protection is deemed to have been lodged if a written document, prepared by a public authority and certifying that a third-country national has requested international protection, has reached the authority responsible for implementing the obligations arising from that regulation, and as the case may be, if only the main information contained in such a document, but not that document or a copy thereof, has reached that authority.

Date of decision: 26-07-2017
Relevant International and European Legislation: European Union Law,EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,Article 6,Article 31,EN - Dublin II Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003,Article 4,EN - Dublin III Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No. 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 (recast Dublin II Regulation),Recital (4),Recital (5),Recital (9),Recital (19),Article 3,Article 4,Article 6,Article 13,Article 17,Article 18,Article 20,Article 21,Article 22,Article 27,Article 28,EN - Recast Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2013/33/EU of 26 June 2013,Article 6,Article 14,Article 17
Greece - Administrative Court of Trikala, 17/2016
Country of applicant: Unknown

Following the making of an application for international protection, detention for the purpose of removal must be terminated in the absence of a new detention order, based on an individualised assessment of the grounds for detention of asylum seekers. The applicant must be released upon condition of appearing in person before the responsible authority for the full registration of his or her application, failing which return proceedings may be executed.

Date of decision: 01-09-2016
Relevant International and European Legislation: European Union Law,EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,Article 6,EN - Returns Directive, Directive 2008/115/EC of 16 December 2008,Article 15,EN - Recast Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2013/33/EU of 26 June 2013,Article 8
France - Administrative Tribunal of Paris, decision of 22 February 2016, No 1602545/9
Country of applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Reception conditions, Material reception conditions

The considerable delays of receiving an appointment at the Prefect in order to register an asylum application means that applicants are deprived of legally entitled guarantees, notably material ones. Consequentially such delays constitute a serious and manifestly illegal infringement upon the fundamental right to asylum.

The Police Prefect must register the asylum application within 10 days of the notification of this decision. 

Date of decision: 22-02-2016
Relevant International and European Legislation: European Union Law,Council of Europe Instruments,EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,Article 6,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 3,EN - Dublin III Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No. 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 (recast Dublin II Regulation),EN - Recast Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2013/33/EU of 26 June 2013
Belgium - Brussels Labour Tribunal, 7 December 2015, 2015/3098
Country of applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid, Unaccompanied minor, Reception conditions, Accommodation centre, Material reception conditions, Vulnerable person

The failure of Fedasil to accommodate an asylum seeking child led to a risk of violating his Article 3 rights. There was a prima facie case that he had lodged an application for asylum and was, thus, entitled to material reception conditions. 

Date of decision: 07-12-2015
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,Article 6,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 3,EN - Recast Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2013/33/EU of 26 June 2013,Article 17