Case summaries
Neither the Applicant, who was approximately nine years old at the time of the decision, nor her parents had submitted reasons for persecution specifically relevant to the Applicant in the proceedings at the court of first instance or in the appeal. Despite this, the Asylum Court reached the conclusion – amongst other things after a personal hearing of the Applicant – that the Applicant would be persecuted directly by the state or privately in Afghanistan owing to her membership of a particular social group and the religious-political attitude to which she would be subjected. In doing so the Asylum Court applied child specific considerations.
In addition, the Court stated that group persecution was to be assumed with regard to Afghan women.
The right to family reunification involving Union citizens who are minor children living with their mothers, who are third country nationals, in the territory of the Member State of which the children are nationals and changes in the composition of the families following the mothers’ remarriage to third country nationals and the birth of children of those marriages who are also third country nationals. The case involves the right to respect for family life and how to take into consideration the children’s best interests.
Acts of a criminal nature cannot be equated with persecution within the meaning of grounds cited under the Convention. Public authorities in the country of origin, which the family of the foreignor did not contact, are supposed to provide protection against risks posed by individual citizens.
The Applicants are not members of a particular social group as defined by the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, as neither their statements, nor the generally available information would indicate that Serbia considers their citizens originating from Kosovo as a particular group with specific characteristics.
Relying upon the jurisprudence of the ECtHR in relation to ECHR, Article 3 and the decision of the Constitutional Court Up-96/09, as referred to by the court of first instance, the Supreme Court ruled that minimal social and economic protection for an individual who is dependent on state aid does not represent a violation of dignity and therefore does not provide sufficient grounds for subsidiary protection. Poor socio-economic conditions, in which the majority of inhabitants of an individual country have found themselves, do not represent sufficient grounds for subsidiary protection.
The option for the CNDA to determine certain cases without involving a collegiate decision was consistent with French, European and International law and the Applicant did not need to be notified of the intention to use this procedure.
This case concerns whether there is an armed conflict in Iraq which meets the threshold of indiscriminate violence set out in Article 15(c) Qualification Directive, such that all applicants from Iraq require subsidiary protection.
This case concerns the interpretation and application of Article 15 of the Dublin Regulation, commonly known as the humanitarian clause, in a specific set of circumstances where the asylum seeker concerned has a daughter in law who is seriously ill, and on account of cultural factors, at risk or has grandchildren below the age of majority, who, as a result of the daughter-in-law’s illness are in need of care and the asylum seeker concerned is both willing and able to support them. The CJEU held in circumstances such as those Article 15(2) must be interpreted so as to make that Member State responsible for the asylum seekers claim. This is applicable even if the Member State which was responsible pursuant to the criteria laid down in Chapter III of the Regulation did not make that request.
The case examined the allegations of five Afghan nationals that their detention conditions in Pagani detention centre were in violation of Article 3 of the Convention, that they did not have access to an effective remedy (Article 13) and that they were deprived of their liberty and security as well as of their right to have the lawfulness of their detention decided speedily by a Court (Article 5 para 4).
The case concerned complaints under Article 5 § 1 by asylum
seekers staying at the Debrecen Reception Centre for Refugees (Hungary) about the unlawfulness of their detention – without effective judicial review – pending the outcome of their asylum claims.
The case concerns an asylum seeker’s complaint under Article 5(1) about the unlawfulness of his detention without effective judicial review, pending the outcome of his asylum claim.