Case summaries
The European Court of Human Rights held that the expulsion of an Algerian national from Slovakia to Algeria, in contempt of an interim measure issued by the Court, was in violation of Articles 3, 13 and 34 of the Convention.
The case concerns a recognised as a refugee in the United Kingdom, who was to be deported in the interests of national security to Jordan. The UK Government obtained assurances from Jordan that he would not be subjected to ill-treatment and would be tried fairly by the Jordanian State Security Court. However the applicant alleged that, if deported to Jordan, he would be at real risk of ill-treatment and an unfair trial.
The detention of asylum applicants may undermine their ability to claim asylum and that an ‘effective remedy’ requires an appeal with suspensive effect against refoulement in order to prevent irreparable harm, sufficient time to prepare the appeal and effective legal assistance and interpretation.
The High Court held that in a case where a negative recommendation in a first instance application for asylum was based exclusively or primarily upon a finding of a personal lack of credibility, there is an obligation to allow an oral appeal in order to provide an "effective remedy," in the sense of Article 39 of the Asylum Procedures Directive, notwithstanding that the Applicant is from a “safe country” and the legislation allows for limiting an Applicant to a written appeal only in those circumstances. For the same reasons, to allow an oral appeal is also required by the right to fair procedures contained in Article 40.3 of the Constitution of Ireland.
The Constitutional Court presents its opinion on the nature of the rights and principles contained in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union(CFRU) and on jurisdiction for the decision on questions of interpretation in connection with the CFRU. It gave an answer in the affirmative to the question of whether the CFRU, in particular Article 47 CFRU, is applicable in asylum proceedings if no such violation was found in the actual case at hand.
A Russian Federation citizen arrived in Finland from another EU country (Lithuania) where he/she alleged that he/she had been persecuted and claimed international protection on this basis. The Immigration Service denied the Applicant a residence permit, failed to examine the application for international protection and decided to deport him/her to Lithuania. The Immigration Service considered Lithuania to be a safe third country and the application for international protection was not examined in relation to his/her country of origin. The Supreme Administrative Court took the view that the issue of international protection could not be dealt with in Lithuania as the grounds for the application were cited as persecution in that same country. The Administrative Court was ordered to overturn the Immigration Service’s decision and return the case back for further consideration.
The case concerned Somali and Eritrean migrants travelling from Libya who had been intercepted at sea by the Italian authorities and sent back to Libya. Returning them to Libya without examining their case exposed them to a risk of ill-treatment and amounted to a collective expulsion.
When detained under conditions that constitute the notion of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of article 3 ECHR, a person is not criminally responsible for committing the unlawful act of escaping custody.
The case relates to the detention and proposed deportation from Belgium of an irregularly present Cameroonian national suffering from HIV.
The Court unanimously found that her deportation to Cameroon would not violate Article 2 or Article 3 ECHR. However, she had not been able to effectively challenge the deportation decision, in violation of Article 13.
The Court found a violation of Article 3 based on the lack of appropriate treatment while she was detained. Further, the additional period of detention following interim measures by the Court preventing her removal, was unlawful and violated Article 5(1)f).
According to the residence permit application, the Applicant, born in 1935, has various ailments and he is fully dependent on his daughter who lives in Finland and is a Finnish citizen. In an interim order, the Administrative Court turned down the Applicant’s non-refoulement argument and held that judgment would be made on the substantive issue at a later date. While the substantive issue was still pending at the Administrative Court seeking a stay on the execution of the interim order so that he would not to be deported while the Administrative Court decided on the substantive issue (a ‘repeal’ application). As according to national legal provisions, a repeal application can only be made on a judgment which has entered into force, the repeal application was inadmissible. Administrative Court, the Applicant applied to the Supreme
Because the failure to accept the non-refoulement argument might render the appeal on the substantive issue de facto ineffective, in order to guarantee the Applicant’s legal protection, in exceptional circumstances there was reason to carry out a review to determine whether his appeal should be handled by the Supreme Administrative Court without it being detrimental to the final decision under Section 58 of the Administrative Procedure Act and Section 199 Article 2 of the Aliens Act.