Case summaries

The fears of an Applicant originating from a refugee camp near Tindouf were considered with regard to the Self-Proclaimed Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR), taken as a de facto authority. 

This was an appeal against the decision to transfer the applicant to Hungary on the ground that Hungary would transfer the applicant to Serbia, which would amount to indirect refoulement in violation of Article 3 ECHR. The Asylum Court allowed the appeal and held that, although Hungary can be assumed as a safe country, if an applicant gives individual reasons for why Hungary is not safe these must be examined in detail. 

The final determination by an administrative court which quashed a decision returning an individual and determining the country of return on the grounds that the individual had substantiated the fear of persecution in the country of return, necessitated the admissibility before the asylum courts of an application for the matter to be re-examined. Based on this judgment, the National Asylum Court (CNDA) therefore had to re-examine all the facts submitted to it for determination.

The case concerns the extension of periods of detention while awaiting removal from Belgian territory with respect to an Iraqi citizen having served his sentence and having submitted a number of asylum applications in Belgium.

The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in R.C. v. Sweden (Application no. 41827/07) has a definitive impact on how protection needs are assessed and the scope of the duty of Swedish courts and authorities to investigate claims of torture.

The Applicant’s objective fear was not considered well-founded as persecution was not considered reasonably likely. It was held that there was a reasonable likelihood that, should he return, the Applicant would be forced to live as an internally displaced person in degrading conditions because he lacked the family network that would be required in order to reintegrate him into his homeland socially and financially. Exposure to extreme living conditions constitutes degrading treatment and deporting a person to a country where he would be subject to such conditions violates Article 3 of the ECHR. Subsidiary protection status was therefore granted.

The Syrian Kurdish Applicant has been persecuted and tortured for his nationality and imputed political opinion.

A risk of persecution of a refugee can extend in time beyond the period during which the actual events took place that resulted in a flight in search of protection. The risk should be assessed taking into account all the evidence and documentation at the Applicant’s disposal.

1. If an Iranian national is declined the opportunity to obtain a school-leaving certificate and attend a state school because of the refusal by Iranian authorities to issue him with identity papers, this constitutes a significant discriminatory administrative measure according to Article 9 paragraph 2 of the Qualification Directive.

 
2. The right to suitable education corresponding to a child’s abilities is recognised as a human right according to international law.

This case concerned the concept of ‘safe country’ within the Dublin system and respect for fundamental rights of asylum seekers. The Court held that EU law prevents the application of a conclusive presumption that Member States observe all the fundamental rights of the European Union. Art. 4 Charter must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may not transfer an asylum seeker to the Member State responsible within the meaning of the Regulation where they cannot be unaware that systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions of asylum seekers in that Member State amount to substantial grounds for believing that the asylum seeker would face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of the provision. Once it is impossible to transfer the asylum seeker to the responsible Member State then subject to the sovereignty clause the State can check if another Member State is responsible by examining further criteria under the Regulation. This should not take an unreasonable amount of time and if necessary then the Member State concerned must examine the asylum application.