Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Reset
ECtHR Krasniqi v. Austria (no. 41697/12)
Country of applicant: Kosovo

Every country has the right to control the entry and residence of aliens in its territory. Withdrawal of subsidiary protection from individuals convicted of serious crimes and subsequent expulsion does not violate their right to family life under Article 8, when there are alternative means of communication, non-severed cultural ties with the motherland and a reasonable prospect of return after the entry ban expiry.

 

Date of decision: 25-04-2017
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 2,Article 3,Article 34,Article 35,Article 38,Article 19
France – Lyon Administrative Tribunal, 3 April 2017, No. 1702564
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

Article 3 of the ECHR imposes an absolute obligation on contracting States not to deport an asylum seeker where doing so would expose him or her to a genuine and serious risk of violence. Under the discretionary clause in Article 17(1) of the Dublin III Regulation, this remains the case where the application does not fall within the immediate responsibilities of that State.

Date of decision: 03-04-2017
Relevant International and European Legislation: European Union Law,Council of Europe Instruments,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 1,Article 4,Article 19,EN - Dublin II Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 3,EN - Dublin III Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No. 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 (recast Dublin II Regulation),Article 17,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011
Germany – Administrative Court of Justice Baden-Württemberg, 15 March 2017, A 11 S 2151/16
Country of applicant: Gambia
Keywords: Delay, Dublin Transfer

Request to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the following issues: Procedural delay, jurisdiction and living conditions under the Dublin Regulation. 

Date of decision: 15-03-2017
Relevant International and European Legislation: European Union Law,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 4,EN - Dublin II Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003,EN - Dublin III Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No. 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 (recast Dublin II Regulation),Article 2,Article 29,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011,EN - Recast Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2013/33/EU of 26 June 2013
CJEU - C-573/14, Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides v. Mostafa Lounani
Country of applicant: Morocco

The CJEU in this case expanded on its previous ruling of B & D. Whereas previously the scope of the exclusion clause for those engaging in terrorist acts was limited to engaging in, conspiring to or planning an actual act of terrorism with an international dimension, the CJEU has now widened the scope to include those who provide logistical support even where no act of terrorism takes place. 

Date of decision: 31-01-2017
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,Art 12,Recital 17,Recital 22,Art 1F,Recital 16,European Union Law,International Law,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011,Article 12
ECtHR - Paposhvili v. Belgium, Application no. 41738/10,13 December 2016
Country of applicant: Georgia

Article 3 ECHR is triggered in cases involving the removal of a seriously ill individual where the absence of appropriate treatment in the receiving country or the lack of access to such treatment, exposes the individual to a serious, rapid and irreversible decline in his or her state of health resulting in intense suffering or to a significant reduction in life expectancy.

Access to sufficient and appropriate medical care must be available in reality, not merely in theory and the impact of removal on an applicant must be assessed by considering how an applicant’s condition would evolve after transfer to the receiving State.

Date of decision: 13-12-2016
Relevant International and European Legislation: European Union Law,Council of Europe Instruments,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 19,Article 52,EN - Returns Directive, Directive 2008/115/EC of 16 December 2008,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 2,Article 3,Article 8,Article 26,Article 34,Article 37,Article 41,Article 43,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011,Article 3
Poland - Judgement of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw from 7 October 2016 I SA/Wa 1197/16 quashing the decision of the President of Warsaw who refused granting child care benefit “500+” to a person with refugee status

The purpose of the child care benefit “500 ” envisaged in the Law of 11 February 2016 is to provide assistance to parents and guardians in raising children by covering some expenses related to their needs. Excluding refugees from persons entitled to this benefit because their residence card does not contain a note “access to labour market” would lead to unfair differentiation of the legal situation of the foreigners (dividing them into those who were issued a residence card with the note “access to labour market“ and those issued a residence card without this note) and of the children (because of their origin and nationality). 

Date of decision: 07-10-2016
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,European Union Law,International Law,Art 23,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011,Article 26,Article 29,UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
Germany - VG Trier, 7 October 2016, 1 K 5093/16.TR
Country of applicant: Syria

When deciding whether refugee status should be available , one must not only consider any pre-persecution but also post-flight circumstances. Judged  on a forward looking basis of persecution of political enemies within Syrian territory, upon return to Syria there continues to be a danger of individual persecution including human rights violations by reason of belonging to a certain group. 

Date of decision: 07-10-2016
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,Art 2,Art 35,European Union Law,International Law,Council of Europe Instruments,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 2,Article 3,Article 7,Article 15,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011,Article 5
Spain – Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court, 6 October 2016, Appeal No 808/2016
Country of applicant: Syria

The Administrative Chamber of the Spanish Supreme Court decides on the inadmissibility of the appeal an applicant for international protection submitted of a judgement that denied him the right of asylum and subsidiary protection.

The Supreme Court concludes there is no legal reasoning to admit the appeal, because what the National Court concluded was well-founded.

Date of decision: 06-10-2016
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 3,Article 15,Article 17,Article 18,Article 21
Greece - Administrative Court of Appeal of Piraeus, 56/2016
Country of applicant: Syria

The Court of Appeal rejected a request rebutting the presumption of Turkey as a safe third country for a Syrian national of Armenian origin who resided there for one year and held a work permit, on the ground that general references to human rights violations and deficiencies in Turkey’s asylum system did not suffice to establish a real and individualised risk of persecution or indirect refoulement to Syria.

Date of decision: 30-09-2016
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,Art 1A (2),EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005,Art 2,Art 33,Art 38,Art 33,European Union Law,International Law,Council of Europe Instruments,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 3,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011,Article 9,Article 15,UN Convention against Torture
Germany – Administrative Court Berlin, 11 September 2016, 33 K 152.15 A
Country of applicant: Russia (Chechnya)

A renewed application for asylum in a second country is admissible if the nature of international protection applied for differs from the protection already granted. Deportation to the country of the first application or the country of origin is not to be taken into account in this situation.

Date of decision: 11-09-2016
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,Art 17,Art 15,Art 13,Art 14,European Union Law,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 18,EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,Article 10,Article 33,Article 40,Article 46,Article 51,EN - Dublin II Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003,Article 3,Article 16,Article 20,EN - Dublin III Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No. 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 (recast Dublin II Regulation),Article 3,Article 18,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011,Article 3,Article 12,Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010/C 83/01,Article 78