Case summaries

The Helsinki Administrative Court held that returning a single mother with her two children to Malta to the conditions described and investigated, among others, in a UN Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Mission to Malta, and on the European Parliament’s LIBE Committee report on Maltese detention centres may cause the family to face inhuman treatment.

The suppression of the expression of racist opinions in a State does not constitute persecution pursuant to the 1951 Refugee Convention, if actions of this kind are considered justified and proportionate following analysisof the particular circumstances.

With this judgment, the General Assembly of CALL is trying to bring its case law in line with the M.S.S. judgment of the ECtHR.

The CALL set the conditions under which an appeal for suspension against an enforceable decision (an order to leave the territory) has automatic suspensive effect.

After a prima facie examination (in extreme urgency), the CALL decided that the applicant in this casehas a reasonable ground of appeal on the basis of Article 3 of the ECHR, as he gave sufficient indications of the concrete problems he was experiencing in Poland. The CALL derived from this a duty of investigation on the part of the Aliens Office. This was sufficient for the CALL, furthermore, to provisionally suspend enforcement of an agreement with Poland to take back the applicant, pending the processing of an appeal for revocation.

European Directive 115/2008 (the ‘Return Directive’) should be applied to the detention of asylum seekers – that is, with all the restrictions on the detention system, which is not to be used automatically but only in cases where there is considered to be a risk of absconding or a threat to society, and with an obligation to state the reasons for the detention – because otherwise there could be an unjustifiable disparity in the treatment of those who are to be returned (and who do not necessarily have to be detained) and asylum seekers who are already destined for return or expulsion (who should always be detained).

This case examined the compatibility of the Dublin II Regulation with the European Convention on Human Rights regarding transfers to Greece under the Dublin II Regulation. The Court found that there was a violation of Article 3 ECHR by the Greece Government because of the applicant’s conditions of detention, violation of Article 3 ECHR by Greece concerning the applicant’s living conditions in Greece, violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3 ECHR against Greece because of the deficiencies in the asylum procedure followed in the applicant’s case and the risk of his expulsion to Afghanistan without any serious examination of the merits of his asylum application and without any access to an effective remedy. The Court also found in relation to Belgium that there was a violation of Article 3 by sending the applicant back to Greece and exposing him to risks linked to the deficiencies in the asylum procedure in that State, also held against Belgium a violation of Article 3 for sending him to Greece and exposing him to detention and living conditions there that were in breach of that ECHR article. The Court also found a violation of Article 13 ECHR taking in conjunction with Article 3 ECHR against Belgium.

In the opinion of the appeal court, the fact that the defendant disregarded the documents submitted by the applicant in support of his request for an application of Article 3(2) of the Dublin Regulation, and omitted to present an argument in the decision as to why it had not upheld the application, fails to satisfy the requirements of the generally accepted legal principles of administrative procedure, because the outcomes of these actions were not assessed and justified in the decision.

This was an appeal against the decision to transfer an asylum applicant to Poland. The Council of State rejected the applicant’s claim that he was not informed about the Dublin procedure in a language intelligible to him, as the applicant had indicated he understood Russian and an interpreter had been provided. Moreover, the circumstances necessary to apply Art 3(2) Dublin Regulation had not been met.

Based on new evidence (suspicion of trafficking) the Administrative Court returned the applicant’s case to the Immigration Service which had previously decided that Italy was responsible for the application according to the Dublin II Regulation.

A transfer to Greece within the framework of the Dublin Regulation was stopped due to the conditions for asylum seekers in the country.

The failure of an asylum applicant to appear with her children (systematically or repeatedly) when summoned in relation to a transfer order under the Dublin Regulation is considered as absconding and results in the extension of the transfer deadline to 18 months. In this case, the applicant never appeared with her children despite receiving several notifications and, according to the Council of State, she was aware that the presence of her children was crucial in order to proceed with her transfer.