Case summaries
Trafficking in human beings falls under the prohibition of Art. 4 of the Convention. Consequently, state parties have the positive obligation:
- to adopt an adequate and comprehensive legal framework to combat this criminal offence;
- to undertake protective measures whenever the authorities are aware or ought to have been aware of a serious risk of a person being subject to trafficking;
- and to appropriately investigate situations of potential trafficking.
The withdrawal of practical protection against deportation for subsequent applications is lawful and does not represent an infringement of the right to an effective remedy (Art 13 ECHR), if the legality of the withdrawal is examined by the Asylum Court.
After the applicant absconded the time frame for a deportation was extended by 18 months and, therefore, Poland’s original acceptance was still valid at the time of the second application. Art 7 Dublin II Regulation is not applicable because the applicant’s family life was established after his first application for asylum. There is no violation of Art 8 ECHR because the applicant’s family life was formed at a moment when the applicant did not know whether he would be able to maintain it.
The case concerned a subsequent application for international protection based on the right to a family and private life (Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)) The application was rejected as inadmissible by the Ministry of Interior (MOI) on the basis that Art 8 considerations were deemed not applicable in asylum cases. However, the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) made two important findings. Firstly it held that even if an application was considered to be inadmissible, there was an obligation to evaluate the risk of refoulement under Art 33 of 1951 Refugee Convention. Secondly, as provided by § 14(a)(2)(d) of the Asylum Act, in exceptional cases, to grant international protection for family life reasons, these have to be accepted as new elements in subsequent proceedings.
The right to family life can outweigh the ‘state responsibility’ criteria in the Dublin II Regulation. The Court held that the application for asylum should be processed in Sweden, in order to secure the right to family and private life (Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights), despite the fact that another State was responsible under the Dublin II Regulation.
Expulsion by France of two nationals of Belarus whose asylum claims had been rejected would amount to a violation of Article 3.
The applicant and her husband were both Ethiopian nationals who had their asylum applications in Switzerland definitively rejected, but were unable to return. The Swiss authorities refused the applicant’s requests to be transferred to her husband’s canton, leading to approximately 5 years separation.
The Court found a violation of their Article 8 right to respect for family life, as the measure had not been necessary in a democratic society.
The applicant and her husband were both Ethiopian nationals who had their asylum applications in Switzerland definitively rejected, but were unable to return. The Swiss authorities refused the applicant’s requests to be transferred to her husband’s canton, leading to approximately 5 years separation.
The Court found a violation of their Article 8 right to respect for family life, as the measure had not been necessary in a democratic society.
In this case, the Austrian Asylum Court held the decision of the Federal Asylum Office not to grant refugee status to the applicant’s child was a violation of Austrian asylum law since the child’s father had been granted refugee status. The Court also held a separation of the newborn child from its mother violates Art 8 ECHR and, therefore, the applicant’s asylum application has to be admitted to the procedure on the merits.
In a decision on whether the return of an unaccompanied minor to Hungary under the Dublin Regulation is unlawful in light of Art. 3 ECHR and therefore the sovereignty clause should be used, Art. 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union(CFRU – best interest of the child as a primary consideration for authorities) is significant.