Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Reset
ECtHR - N.D. and N.T. v. Spain [GC], nos. 8675/15 and 8697/15, 13 February 2020
Country of applicant: Ivory Coast, Mali

The Court found no violation of the Convention given that the applicants would have had access to a genuine and effective possibility of submitting arguments against their expulsion had  they entered lawfully into Spain – they did not have any “cogent reasons” for not using the border procedures available at designated entry points. As such, the lack of an individualised procedure for their removal was the consequence of their own conduct.

Date of decision: 13-02-2020
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 1,Art 3,Art 32,Art 33,Art 31,Art 4,Art 16,Art 22,Article 4,Article 18,Article 19,Art 19.1,Art 19.2,Article 47,Article 6,Article 7,Article 8,Article 9,Article 10,Article 1,Article 2,Article 4,Article 5,Article 8,Article 12,Article 13,Art 33.2,Article 1,Article 3,Article 13,Article 13,Article 2,Article 4,Article 14,Article 21,Art 4,Art. 3,Article 67,Article 78
ECtHR - Pajić v Croatia, Application no. 68453/13, 23 February 2016
Country of applicant: Bosnia and Herzegovina

Same-sex couples are not excluded from the ambit of the Convention’s family life and cohabiting is not a pre-requisite of establishing family life.

A difference in treatment between persons in relevantly similar positions has occurred in this case since the Croatian Aliens Act has made no provision for same-sex couples seeking a residence permit to join their respective partner, whereas it did contain provisions relating to married and unmarried different-sex couples. The applicant had, therefore, experienced a difference in treatment based on her sexual orientation which had not been justified with weight reasons by the Croatian government. Croatia had, thus, violated Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8.

Date of decision: 23-02-2016
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,Art 3,Article 8,Article 14,Article 34,Article 35,Article 36,Article 41,UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
France - Council of State, 10 October 2014, Association ELENA and others, Association FORUM REFUGIES-COSI, Nos. 375474 and 375920.

The Council of State denied the Applicants’ appeal against the decision made by the Board of the Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) to include Georgia and the Republic of Albania in the list of safe countries of origin because, amongst other things, these countries are democratic institutions and are parties to the ECHR.

The Council of State granted the Applicants’ appeal against the decision made by the Board of OFPRA to include the Republic of Kosovo in the list of safe countries of origin because, amongst other things, the country’s political and social contexts were unstable and some segments of the population were subject to violence without sufficient police protection.

Date of decision: 10-10-2014
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005,Art 30,Art 1,Art 3,Art 31,Article 18,Article 47,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 13
France - Council of State, 4 March 2013, ELENA and Others, n° 356490, n°356491, n°356629
Country of applicant: Unknown

Referring specifically to the asylum procedures directive, the Council of State examines the external and internal legality of the French list of safe countries of origin and decides to take Bangladesh off the list.

Date of decision: 04-03-2013
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005,Art 30,Art 1,Art 3,Article 18,Article 47,Article 13
Ireland - High Court, 18 December 2012, T. E. S., M. N. R. and B. F. R. [South Africa] v Minister for Justice and Equality, and the Attorney General [2012] IEHC 554
Country of applicant: South Africa

The Court granted permission to the Applicants to seek judicial review of the negative decision made in a written appeal (rather than an oral appeal) in an application for refugee status made by a South African one-parent family. The decision to allow a written appeal was based on the status of South Africa as a ‘safe country,’ and the appeal decision was based on personal credibility and the absence of a nexus to Convention grounds. The Applicants failed in their argument that the absence of an oral hearing may render the appeal decision unlawful by reference to the right to an effective remedy as guaranteed by the Asylum Procedures Directive, because the Applicants had in fact availed of the appeal rather than challenge the fact that it was confined to a written appeal. Leave to seek judicial review was granted on the basis that an aspect of the claim which was disclosed after the first instance decision was not properly considered; that the decision maker made exaggerated credibility findings to the potential detriment of a subsequent subsidiary protection application; and erred in the consideration of country of origin information and evidence of the availability of internal protection.

Date of decision: 18-12-2012
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 15 (c),Art 15 (b),Art 8,Art 4.3,Art 39,Art 4.5,Art 3,Art 31
Ireland - High Court, S.U.N. v Refugee Applications Commissioner & ors [2012] IEHC 338
Country of applicant: South Africa

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.

Date of decision: 30-03-2012
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 2 (e),Art 30,Art 3,Recital 27,Recital 21,Art 15.3,Art 39.3,Annex II,Article 13
France - Council of State, 23 July 2010, Amnesty International France and others, n° 336034

Partial quashing of the list of safe countries of origin: Armenia, Madagascar, Turkey and Mali (women only) removed from the list

Date of decision: 03-07-2010
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005,Art 23,Art 30,Art 1,Art 3
UK - Court of Appeal, 26 September 2009, EN (Serbia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [2009] EWCA Civ 630
Country of applicant: Serbia, South Africa
Keywords: Non-refoulement
 
Art 14.4 (a) of the Qualification Directive must be interpreted in accordance with Art 33.2 of the Refugee Convention. Thus, for the provisions to be applied, the individual must (1) have been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime and (2) constitute a danger to the community. It was not compatible with either Art 14.4 (a) of the Qualification Directive or Art 33.2 of the Refugee Convention for domestic legislation to provide that the conviction of certain crimes to create a presumption, that could not be rebutted, that the provisions applied to an individual. Any such presumptions had to be capable of being rebutted by the individual.
Date of decision: 26-09-2009
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,Art 1,Art 2,Art 14,Art 3,Art 32,Art 33,Art 31,Art 4,Art 16,Art 22,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 2,Article 3
UK - Court of Appeal, 26 July 2002, El-Ali v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 1103
Country of applicant: Lebanon, Palestinian Territory
Art 1D of the 1951 Refugee Convention only applies to Palestinians who met two criteria. First of all, they had to have been in receipt of United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (“UNRWA”) protection or assistance on or before 28 July 1951 which was the date that the Convention was adopted. Secondly, whilst UNRWA’s mandate continued, if such Palestinians had left UNRWA’s field of operation they would have to show that they were in “exceptional circumstance”; for example if they were prevented from returning to UNRWA’s field of operation.
Date of decision: 26-07-2002
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,Art 12,Art 28,Art 1,Art 3,Art 32,Art 33,Art 31,Art 4,Art 16,Art 22,Art 2,Art 13,Art 15,Art 17,Art 21,Art 24,Art 26,Art 27