Case summaries

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.

This case is concerned with whether an appeal against the lawfulness of an asylum applicant’s detention was allowed. Thus the prejudicial question was formulated questioning whether the measure under article 8(3)(a-b) recast Reception Conditions Directive is valid with regards to the provisions in Article 6 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (CFREU) subject to Article 5 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The case shows how the legal amendment which entered into force on 13 November 2015 changed the situation of asylum seekers by deleting the legal basis for detention formulated as “preventing from abusing the asylum proceedings”. Instead, article 87 (1) (3) of the Law on granting protection to foreigners in the territory of the Republic of Poland reflects article 8 (3)(d) of the recast Reception Directive and states that an applicant can be detained in order to issue or enforce the return decision if towards the applicant there is an ongoing return proceedings or there was a return decision issued and the applicant already had the opportunity to access the asylum procedure, and there are reasonable grounds to believe that the application was merely made in order to delay or frustrate the enforcement of the return decision.

The Border Guard relied on this provision when prolonging the detention of the applicant in the present case arguing it with the need to secure the proceedings regarding international protection. In the opinion of the Court, this provision cannot be used in the situation where the applicant is not subject to return proceedings and no such decision has been issued so far. That is why he should be released.

The transfer of an applicant for asylum to Malta violates the Regulation (EU) no 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 (“Dublin III Regulation”) because Malta’s asylum procedures and system show systemic deficiencies with the inherent risk of subjecting an applicant for asylum to inhuman or degrading treatment.  

While accepting that Hungary is the responsible EU State for processing the applicant's asylum application (Article 18(1) Dublin Regulation III), the Court held that  a transfer to Hungary may not occur due to systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and reception conditions in Hungary,  that would  put the applicant at a serious risk of suffering inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR) and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (Article 3 para 2 Dublin III) .