Case summaries

Article 4 ECHR requires that victims of trafficking are promptly identified as soon as there is credible suspicion of trafficking-related circumstances, regardless of whether the victims were able to identify and mention their experience.

To the extent that is possible, potential victims of trafficking can only be prosecuted following an assessment of whether they have been trafficked. Prosecutorial service should be aware of protocols around trafficking cases.

The lack of an assessment of whether the applicants had been trafficked prevented them from obtaining evidence that were fundamentally related to their defence in violation of their right to a fair trial under Article 6. The domestic judicial procedure was also contrary to Article 6 insofar as the applicants’ subsequent claims regarding their trafficking were not adequately assessed.

Asylum seekers cannot refer to a delayed take charge request by one Member State to another, in particular when the requested Member State has accepted the request. Article 17 (1) of Regulation No. 343/2003 (Dublin II) does not guarantee individual protection for asylum applicants against a transfer to another Member State. 

A span of more than three-years between the filing of the appeal against the expulsion order and the original scheduling of the initial oral hearing of such appeal violated a plaintiff’s right to a trial without undue delays, in accordance with the criteria identified by the Spanish Constitutional Court in its settled case-law for determining whether a procedural delay is undue. These criteria consider, among others, the complexity of the case, the average duration of similar proceedings and the nature of the plaintiff’s interest at stake. 

The case examined the allegations of the applicant that his proposed expulsion to Turkey would place him at risk of inhuman and degrading treatment and would jeopardize his physical and health integrity.

The Court found no violation of the articles 2 and 3 of the Convention and held the claimed violations of articles 6 and 8 to be unfounded.

The procedure of the Court did not include decisive evidence for an assessment of whether, as a ground for revoking protection status, the complainant represented a danger to the security of the Slovak Republic, thereby infringing the complainant’s right to respond to all of the evidence, under Article 48(2) of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic and under Article 38(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms in conjunction with Article 13(4) of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic and Article 4(4) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. The basis on which the competent authorities reach a decision must be clear from the administrative authority’s file and from the court file, even where no explicit reason is provided in the statement of reasons for their decision.

The Respondent concluded that the Appellant represents a danger to the security of the Slovak Republic, although there was no information in the administrative file on the basis of which it might reach such a conclusion (valid premise). It is thus a clear case of the findings of fact (that the Appellant represents a danger to the security of the Slovak Republic) being in conflict with the contents of the file. Such a situation constitutes a ground for setting aside a contested decision under the provisions of Section 250j(2) of the Civil Procedure Code.

If the Respondent had information on the basis of which it reached a valid premise, according to which the Appellant represents a danger to the security of the Slovak Republic, this must exist in a form (usually written) which enables the parties to the proceedings, their representatives or the reviewing authority to acquaint themselves with the contents thereof. If, however, the Respondent, despite the existence of this information, failed to place it in the administrative file, the file must be regarded as incomplete, which constitutes a ground for setting aside a contested decision under the provisions of Section 250j(3) of the Civil Procedure Code.

This case concerned the disproportionate delay in processing the applicant’s claim for asylum on appeal. The applicant was informed that it would take eighteen months for his case to be heard. He lodged an appeal before the Constitutional Court (as a last resort) claiming the right to due process constitutionally guaranteed under Art 24.2 of the Spanish Constitution to enjoy legal process without undue delay.

Even if an asylum applicant meets the conditions for provding subsidiary protection, he will be excluded from eligibility for subsidiary protection if there are serious grounds for believing that he represents a danger to society or a danger to the Member State in which he is staying.

It follows from the decision of the European Court of Human Rights that signatory states to the Convention (Convention for theProtection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) are under an obligation not to hand over/deport a person to a country where he might be at risk of treatment which is contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. In the case in question, however, the subject of the judicial review was not the decision to deport the Appellant, but the Respondent’s decision not to grant asylum and not to provide subsidiary protection as requested by the Appellant.