Case summaries

Article 26(1) of the Dublin III Regulation precludes the issuance of a transfer decision by the determining Member-State until the requested Member-State implicitly or explicitly accepts the take charge/back request.

Detention of asylum seekers should only be permitted under the conditions prescribed by the law. The detention and deportation orders should always provide sufficient legal justification including the objective facts leading to the administrative authorities’ decision.

The case concerns the validity of the first subparagraph of Article 8(3)(a) and (b) of the Receptions Conditions Directive in the light of Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. 

The case concerns the calculation of time limits for detention for the purpose of a Dublin transfer under Article 28 of the Dublin III Regulation (DRIII).

The Federal Supreme Court rules that the separate detention of families with minor children and the placement in a children’s home violates the right to family life in Art. 8 ECHR, if less intrusive measures than detention have not been taken into consideration.

Lack of prompt investigation of ill-treatment complaints may amount to a procedural violation of Article 3 ECHR. Detention conditions should follow certain standards and individuals should be kept in suitable establishments with enough allocated space.

Following the making of an application for international protection, detention for the purpose of removal must be terminated in the absence of a new detention order, based on an individualised assessment of the grounds for detention of asylum seekers. The applicant must be released upon condition of appearing in person before the responsible authority for the full registration of his or her application, failing which return proceedings may be executed.

The Slovenian legislature has not fulfilled its obligations under the provisions of Article 2(n) of the Dublin Regulation. The possibility of an analogous application of Article 68 of the Aliens Act-2 has a very weak basis in terms of the objective criteria required. It can only be sufficient in a particular case if in light of the specific circumstances of the case there is no doubt about the existence of the risk of absconding.

The case concerns three unconnected Iranian nationals who unsuccessfully claimed asylum in the Republic of Cyprus then came to the UK where they made asylum claims.  A further right to appeal remained with the Cypriot Supreme Court.  The case is a challenge by the applicants to the SSHD’s refusal to decide their asylum claims substantively; certification of their asylum claims on safe third country grounds; and certification of their human rights claims as clearly unfounded.

The Court concluded that there was no real risk that the applicants, if returned to Iran from Cyprus, would be refouled there and the inclusion of Cyprus on the list of safe third countries involves no incompatibility with the ECHR.  The Court was wholly unpersuaded that there was any flagrant breach of Article 5 in Cyprus for Dublin returnees who have had a final decision on their claim.

Article 8(3)(e) of the recast Reception Conditions Directive fulfils the requirements of proportionality by virtue of the strictly circumscribed framework regulating its use. In light of Article 52(3) of the Charter, Article 8(3)(e) therefore complies with Article 5(1)(f) of the ECHR.