Case summaries

This was an appeal against the decision to transfer the applicant to Hungary despite the applicant’s claim that he had first applied for asylum in Greece. The fact that there were no fingerprints on EURODAC did not prove the applicant had never been to Greece and according to Article 16(3) Dublin regulation Greece’s responsibility for the application would only expire if the applicant left the European Union for more than 3 months. However, since a deportation to Greece would violate Art 3 ECHR, the applicant should be admitted to the asylum procedure in Austria.

An acceptance by Poland to take back the applicants was invalid because the Austrian Federal Asylum Office failed to inform Poland of the fact that the applicants have the status of subsidiary protection in Austria. As long as the applicants have this status a Dublin procedure is impossible because they have a legal stay in Austria and cannot be expelled.

The Asylum Court rejected an appeal against the decision to expel the applicant, who has a medical condition, and her daughter to Italy. The situation in Italy was assumed to be in accordance with the Reception Conditions Directive and there was, therefore, no real risk of a violation of Art 3 ECHR. There was no violation of Art 8 ECHR as the applicant’s son had been living in Austria for 10 years, which meant there was no family life worth protecting.

The applicant sought to rely on her Islamic proxy marriage to her husband, a recognised refugee in Ireland, to resist removal to the UK under the Dublin Regulations. Her application for judicial review failed as she was held to have forfeited her right under Article 7 of the Dublin II Regulation due to delay on her part in asserting that right.

This was an appeal against the decision that Poland was responsible for the asylum application of a three-month-old boy with a serious medical condition. The Austrian Federal Asylum Office did not consider the applicant’s medical condition appropriately and therefore risked violating Art 3 ECHR.

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. 

The Asylum Court allowed an appeal against the decision to transfer the applicants, a family with both physical and psychological medical conditions, to Italy. Given the applicants’ exceptional circumstances and the problems Italy has with capacity, the lack of reliable assurances from the Italian authorities in relation to medical treatment and accommodation gave rise to a risk of a violation of Art 3 ECHR.

This case concerned access to an effective remedy in the context of expulsion proceedings from the Czech Republic. It deals with access to an effective remedy and the reliance on Art. 13 ECHR for arguable claims under Article 3 ECHR on the basis that the Appellants would be ill-treated if returned to Guinea. The Court held that there was a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3.

The Administrative Court considered the proposed removal of the applicant from the UK to Italy under the Dublin Regulation. In applying MSS v Belgium and Greece and KRS v UK to applications to resist removal under the Dublin Regulation on human rights grounds, a system which protects the rights of asylum seekers should be presumed in other EU member states. The evidence must reveal a systemic failure on a significant scale for the presumption to be rebutted.  Particular weight would be given to the public statements of UNHCR and other intergovernmental bodies with appropriate mandates.  Little or no weight would usually be given to expert reports in such cases.

This was an appeal against a decision to expel a widowed illiterate mother and five of her children who had been granted subsidiary protection in Bulgaria. Austria did not have to apply the sovereignty clause, as the situation in Bulgaria did not give rise to a real risk of a violation of Art 3 ECHR. Although the applicant’s sixth child had entered Austria and applied for asylum as an unaccompanied minor two years earlier, there was no violation of Art 8 ECHR because family reunification was possible in Bulgaria and there is no family life worth protecting.