Case summaries

This judgment overturned the decision of the Polish Refugee Board on examination of a manifestly unfounded application, on refusal to accord refugee status, provide subsidiary protection or grant a permit for tolerated stay, and on deportation from the Republic of Poland

In the proceedings, the foreigner stressed that he had left his country of origin as a child and currently has no family there, and that his entire family resides legally in Poland (they were granted a permit for tolerated stay in refugee proceedings). As the decision on refusal of protection is linked to the decision on deportation, refusal of protection would result in the Applicant being unable to see his family for many years. Therefore, in the Applicant’s opinion, the decision on deportation constituted interference in his family life, since it would result in him being separated from his family.

The Court found that the authority should properly examine and address the allegations made by the Applicant and thus consider the foreigner’s individual and family circumstances in the context of the possible application of Article 8 of the Convention, including the length of his stay in Poland, the possible obstacles to him living in his country of origin, and the likely effects on the Applicant’s family if the family was to be separated by the Applicant moving to another country.

This inadmissibility decision concerned the transfer of Mrs. Hussein and her children to Italy from the Netherlands under the Dublin II Regulation. The Court found the applicant’s complaints under Article 3 ECHR and Article 13 ECHR as manifestly unfounded within the meaning of Article 35(3)(a) of the Convention. The Court found that though there were shortcomings in Italy it did not disclose systemic failures to provide support for asylum seekers there. 

The case concerns the examination of an asylum claim by the Austrian authorities and assessment of a real risk that the applicant would be subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR if expelled to Russia. 

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is also applicable to proceedings to issue a return decision and requires a hearing. With regard to an Applicant who is not represented by anyone legally qualified, such an obligation also exists in cases in which an application for an oral hearing was not expressly lodged. This applies in particular when considering questions concerning private and family life in Austria.

The Constitutional Court revoked the decision by the Asylum Court, as it violated the right of the Applicant to respect for his family life in accordance with Art 8 of the ECHR. In particular, the reference by the Asylum Court to the possibility of maintaining the relationship with his one-year old child (with asylum status in Austria) by means of modern media (Internet, Skype, telephone,…) was incomprehensible.

In family reunification cases it is only possible to use DNA testing to verify family ties in situations where serious doubts persist concerning kinship after other forms of evidence have been presented.

The case concerns discrimination against a refugee and his post-flight wife in the enjoyment of their right to family life because she was not allowed to join him in the UK. This was owed to more restrictive rules for the reunification of the spouses of refugees in comparison to workers or students, or to refugees married at the time of the flight.

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.

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.

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.