Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Reset
Austria - Constitutional Court, 28 June 2011, B4/11
Country of applicant: Guinea

Legality of detention in the event of imminent deportation to Greece, if the detention was imposed before the judgment by the ECtHR in the case M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece (application no. 30696/09) and there is an enforceable expulsion decision.

Date of decision: 28-06-2011
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 18,Art 21,Art 23.4 (h),Art 32,Art 6,Art 13,Article 4,Article 19,Article 39,Article 15,2.,Article 10,Article 18,Article 2,Article 3,Article 5,Article 8
Slovakia - Migration Office, 18 January 2011, M.S.A. v. Ministry of the Interior of the Slovak Republic – 1Sža/102/2010
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

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.

Date of decision: 18-01-2011
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1.,2.,Article 18,Article 3,Article 13,Art 5.1,Art 5.4
Austria - Constitutional Court, 7 October 2010, U694/10
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

The Constitutional Court allowed an appeal against a decision to expel a single mother and her three minor children to Greece. It is necessary that Greece ensure appropriate accommodation will be provided for vulnerable persons in each case. The applicants are vulnerable persons and the lack of assurance from Greece, therefore, gave rise to a real risk of a violation of Art 3 ECHR.

Date of decision: 07-10-2010
Relevant International and European Legislation: 2.,Article 10,Article 18,Article 3
Spain - High National Court, 19 May 2010, 632/2009
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

The case concerned an appeal before the High National Court against the decision of the Spanish Asylum and Refugee Office (Ministry of Interior) rejecting an application for refugee status based on the fact that the applicant entered the EU through Greece. Therefore, following the Dublin II Regulation, Greece would be the responsible country for examining the application for asylum. The High National Court stated that after passing the six month period established by Art 19.3 of the Regulation CE/343/2003 without executing the transfer of the applicant to a Member State considered responsible for the examination, Spain was the responsible country for the case.

Date of decision: 19-05-2010
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005,Art 26,UNHCR Handbook,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 18,EN - Dublin II Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003,Article 10,Article 13,Article 18,Article 19,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 3
Finland - Supreme Administrative Court, 29 Oct 2009, KHO:2009:2676
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

The Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) quashed a decision of the Finnish Immigration Service which, applying the Dublin II Regulation, did not examine the application for international protection and decided to return the applicant to Greece. The SAC returned the case to the Immigration Service for a new examination based on new evidence that was presented regarding the applicant’s health.

Date of decision: 29-10-2009
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,Art 4,Art 35.1,EN - Dublin II Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003,2.,Article 10,Article 18,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 3
France – Council of State, 2 March 2007, Minister for the Interior v Mr. A., No 302034
Country of applicant: Iran

The presence of an adult asylum applicant’s sibling in an EU Member State entails no obligation for that State to apply Art 7 Dublin Regulation, as siblings are not included in the definition of family members in Art 2(i). This was the case even though the applicant’s brother had been granted refugee status and, subsequently, citizenship in France.

Date of decision: 02-03-2007
Relevant International and European Legislation: (i),1.,2.,4.,Article 7,Article 15,Article 17,Article 18,Article 19