Case summaries
The State Secretariat of Migration (SSM) is obliged to assess the proportionality of a cessation measure in a case of a granted temporary residence in Switzerland. It was concluded that the cessation of temporary residence is not proportionate, when the applicant showed considerable efforts to integrate in the host community such as learning languages and practicing several internships to obtain a job in that country. His return would hamper all those integration efforts.
A court may dismiss the appeal without further proceedings in a non-public session, if the appeal does not depend on the solution of a legal question that is of fundamental significance.
In the case of an Afghan, the appeal does not depend on the solution of a fundamental question, if the lower instance has sufficiently examined the situation in the appellant’s country of origin. This is the case, if the court sufficiently considered possible internal flight alternatives by air.
Article 48 para. 3 sentence 2 and 3 AufenthG does not offer a suitable legal basis for the search of homes.
The issue of a search warrant according to police and public order law requires concrete evidence that certain documents could be detected. The violation of the obligation to cooperate according to § 48 para. 3 sentence 1 AufenthG (refusal of the applicant to obtain a passport or similar), as well as vaguely expressed doubts of the authorities about the passport loss, are not sufficient to issue a warrant for the search of homes. Such a search warrant is in any case not proportionate if the probability of detection is low.
Given the emergency of the situation, family reunification could only be refused in circumstances where the relevant individual does not comply with principles of public order.
As a result, the Court concluded that there were serious doubts as to the legality of the decisions refusing family reunification.
In view of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Swiss authorities should obtain formal and detailed guarantees on care and accommodation from the Italian authorities before transferring families and vulnerable persons to Italy under the Dublin III Regulation.
This is because Decree-law 113/218 on Public safety and Immigration in Italy has deeply reformed the Italian refugee reception system.
In order to examine prohibitions of deportation, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) has to consider the case of each family member even in cases of family associations separately whether deportation prohibitions exist. In this case, the risk assessment must be based on the assumption that a nuclear family living together in the Federal Republic of Germany will return to its country of origin as a family unit. This also applies if individual family members have already been granted a protection status or if national deportation prohibitions have been established.
It is necessary to make a proportionality assessment with consideration of both the gravity of the crime committed by the applicant and the interests of society, and the applicant’s individual rights, particularly his right to private and family life under Article 8.
The Federal Administrative Court failed to fully assess the impact that the measure of removal would have on the applicant. The evolution of the applicant's conduct since the occurrence of the crime, the applicant’s deteriorating medical condition, and his social, cultural and family ties in the host country were not sufficiently examined in the decision. The failure to assess the proportionality of the removal order and amounted to a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
Neither Austrian law nor the provisions of the Dublin III Regulation provide for legal remedies against a Member State’s rejection of a request for admission. The Dublin Regulation provides for a remonstration procedure between the Member States concerned in the event of a rejection, whereby after expiry of the remonstration period the requesting Member State is finally responsible for examining the application for international protection. A later agreement after the remonstration period has expired cannot establish any responsibility.
The Spanish authorities failed to properly consider all the relevant criteria, before initiating proceedings to expel two Moroccan nationals, who were awaiting their long-term residence permits, due to their criminal convictions. The proportionality of the measure was not adequately assessed and the applicants’ social and cultural ties with both Spain and Morocco were not taken into account.
A birth certificate is not a decision within the meaning of paragraph 108 FamFG. As a child grows older the need of beeing looked after by both its parents decreases. There is no necessity for interim order in the case of family reunification, when the child is about to come of age, as the right to subsequent immigration is not lost upon the child’s coming of age according to the CJEU.