Case summaries

A Somalian citizen, claiming to be from Mogadishu, had applied for international protection due to the lack of  safety in his/her native country and human rights violations infringements in Mogadishu.  According to his/her language assessment, he/she clearly didn’t speak the Somalian spoken in Southern Somalia but manifestly spoke the Somalian spoken in Northern Somalia.  The language assessment alone was not considered to be enough proof of domicile but taking into account his/her scant local knowledge of Mogadishu and partially contradictory accounts, it was deemed that he/she in fact was from Northern Somalia, Somaliland.  According to the report, the appellant and his/her underage children whom he/she brought along to Finland were not in need of international protection.

The legality of an applicant’s detention in a Centre for Identification and Expulsion (C.I.E.), even where this satisfies legal requirements, should be assessed in the light of the compatibility of the applicant’s state of health with the type of assistance and support that the centre is able to provide.

In order to determine whether an Applicant is exposed to a significant, specific risk stemming from an armed conflict, reference should be made to the actual target location of the foreign national upon return in the case of a localised armed conflict. This is often the region of origin of the Applicant. If the region of origin cannot be considered as the target location due to the risk facing the claimant, the latter may only be referred to another region in the country subject to the requirements of Article 8 of the Qualification Directive.

With regard to the evaluation as to whether extraordinary circumstances exist which do not come under the direct responsibility of the target deportation state and which prohibit the deporting state from deporting the foreign national according to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, reference should be made to the target deportation state as a whole in order to verify whether these circumstances exist in the location in which the deportation ends. 

Refugee status was recognised for a transgender woman from Pakistan because discrimination for reasons relevant to asylum as well as involuntary prostitution to earn a living are sufficiently serious to represent persecution within the meaning of the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.

It is the duty of the administrative body to deal reasonably with objections to intrusion into the private and family life of the applicant within international protection proceedings.

Failure to integrate into the country, which is typically the case, does not constitute grounds for protection. Behaviour a long time previously in relation to the entry is not significant when assessing security requirements. Aggressive behaviour in the Federal Support Centre does not alone represent a need for security which justifies detention (deportation detention). Despite removal from the Federal Support Centre owing to this behaviour, this must not lead to an asylum seeker losing his entitlement to basic services.

The right to pocket money for an asylum seeker whose placement in a private address is permitted by the Migration Office because of justified reasons is part of the right to dignity. Legislation depriving a person of this right is not in line with the Constitution. 

Rules on rights of applicants for international protection (Governmental Decree, Official Gazette no.64/14) determining that financial aid for asylum seekers placed in a private address is to be decreased by 50% might endanger the applicant’s right to human dignity. 

The holding of two Somali nationals in a Maltese detention centre is declared not to be a violation of Article 3 of the Convention; the cumulative effect of the conditions of detention did not amount to inhuman treatment.  The Court accepted that the detention, although lengthy, fell within Article 5 (1) (f). However, the Court declares a violation of Article 5 (4) as the applicants did not have access to judicial review of the decision to detain them, hence they could not challenge the lawfulness of detention. 

The case concerns the removal of a Brazilian national residing in French Guiana (a French overseas département-région) and his inability to challenge the measure before its enforcement.

In a situation of unlawful detention – unlawful because it did not comply with national and European norms on the detention of illegally staying citizens – as well as inhuman and degrading conditions in the Identification and Expulsion Centre, the revolt by the four Defendants should be considered as proportionate and the alleged conduct should be treated as legitimate defence.