Case summaries

The Court found that the Swiss legislation sets stringent socio-economic requirements which in practice may render the right to family reunification impossible to exercise, in view of the personal situation of the sponsors residing in Switzerland and who cannot be expected to do the impossible to meet the conditions imposed on them.

The Court found Hungary in violation of procedural aspects of Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR, as well as a substantive violation of Article 2 in relation to the death of the applicant’s brother during a border control operation. The Court rejected the substantive violation of Article 3 due to a lack of conclusive evidence from an effective investigation.

The Court of Justice held that defending personal interests against illegally acting non-state actors due to state corruption can be regarded as ‘political opinion’ under Directive 2011/95 if perceived as opposition by the persecuting actors.

The Return Directive precludes the adoption of a return decision when the person concerned is suffering from a serious illness and there are substantial grounds to believe that their pain would significantly increase if returned, because effective treatment is not available there. Although the Directive does not require Member States to grant a right to residence to such third-country nationals, when implementing the Directive, the right to private and family life must be respected, which includes, among other elements, access to healthcare and medical treatment.

Complaint under Article 3 ECHR concerning the conditions of detention of a Turkish national in the Czech Bělá-Jezová detention centre declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. Failure to conduct an independent, thorough and victim-accessible investigation into allegations of police ill-treatment at Prague Airport amounts to a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 3 ECHR. Alleged ill-treatment by police officers does not amount to a violation of the substantive aspect of Article 3 ECHR, as the ECtHR cannot establish beyond reasonable doubt that the force used, including pepper spray, was excessive.

The Court found that there was a breach of Article 6(1) and (3)(d) of the Convention. The Court clarified that for a waiver of one’s rights to be compatible with the Convention, it must be shown that the applicant could reasonably have foreseen the consequences of his conduct. They further asserted that while the acceptance of pre-trial statements as evidence for a conviction is not a breach of Articles 6 (1) and 3(d), the absence of good reason for their use results in a breach of the Articles 6(1) and 3(d).

Detention beyond the period for which an individual would otherwise need to be detained pursuant to Schedule 2 § 16(1) for the purpose of an age assessment that will or doesn’t comply with applicable legal standards would be unlawful. Also, both common law and section 55 of the BCIA 2009 require a fair and careful process involving appropriate safeguards, which the Guidance doesn’t provide and is also inconsistent with the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) pre-existing polices.

In a case concerning a foreign national who had a valid refugee status in Germany, the Dutch Secretary of State ordered them to leave the country and placed her in detention in view of returning her to Germany. The Council of State found that the first instance Court wrongfully declared that Article 59(2) of the Aliens Act of 2000 provided no basis for detaining the foreign national.

The assessment for a well-founded fear of persecution under the Refugee Convention must have regard to Country-of-Origin information and reports.  Moreover, if the publication of the applicant’s name will have no adverse effect on either him or his family, the appellant’s private life rights, protected by article 8 ECHR, will not outweigh the public interest in open justice, as protected by article 10 ECHR.

The Court found that there was a violation of Article 2 of the ECHR as State authorities used unreliable evidence to conclude their investigation into the death of an applicant. Moreover, the Court concluded that the State authorities violated Article 5 ECHR by failing to conduct an effective investigation into whether there was an alternative to detaining the applicants. As such, the detention of the children in a detention centre was further found to have violated Article 3, especially given the severity of the circumstances of the case and the period of their detention. The Court also concluded that the applicants had been subject to “expulsion” within the meaning of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4, since they were forcibly returned by the Croatian police outside official border crossings and without prior notification to the authorities of the country to which they were being returned.