Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Reset
ECtHR – Asady and others v. Slovakia, Application no. 24917/15, 24 March 2020
Country of applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Effective remedy (right to), Individual assessment, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Procedural guarantees, Return

The standardised nature of the questions to the applicants and similarities in the responses recorded do not necessarily indicate a lack of individualised assessment. The applicants were not deprived of an opportunity to submit arguments against their expulsion and did not make any claim of persecution risks in their country of origin. No collective expulsion under Article 4 Protocol 4 has been established.

Similarly, no violation of Article 4 Protocol 4 in conjunction with Article 13 has been established, as the claim cannot be considered arguable.

Date of decision: 24-03-2020
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 18,Article 19,Article 47,Article 3,Article 13,Art 4,Article 2,Article 6
CJEU – Joined Cases C-391/16, C-77/17 and C-78/17, M (Révocation du statut de réfugié)
Country of applicant: Congo (DRC), Ivory Coast, Russia, Russia (Chechnya)
Keywords: Exclusion from protection, Non-refoulement, Revocation of protection status, Serious non-political crime, Refugee Status, Cessation of protection
The provisions of Article 14(4) to (6) of Directive 2011/95 cannot be interpreted as meaning that the effect of the revocation or the refusal of the refugee status is that the person concerned, who satisfies the material conditions set forth in Article 1A of the Geneva Convention, is excluded from international protection. Member States, when implementing Article 14(4) and (5) of the directive, are required to grant refugees who are present in their respective territories only the rights expressly referred to in Article 14(6) of that directive and the rights set out in the Geneva Convention that are guaranteed for any refugee who is present in the territory of a Contracting State and do not require a lawful stay.

Article 21(2) of the directive precludes Member States from issuing a measure of refoulement or expulsion against the persons covered by one of the scenarios described in Article 14(4) and (5) of Directive 2011/95 if this would expose the concerned persons to the risk of their fundamental rights as enshrined in Article 4 and Article 19(2) of the Charter of fundamental rights of the EU.

Date of decision: 14-05-2019
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 18,Article 2,Article 11,Article 12,Article 13,Article 14,Article 21,Article 24,Article 28,Article 34,Article 6,Article 78
ECtHR - N.D. and N.T. v. Spain, Application Nos. 8675/15 and 8697/15, 3 October 2017
Country of applicant: Ivory Coast, Mali
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid, Procedural guarantees, Return

NB: the case was referred to the Grand Chamber, which issued a new ruling on 13 February 2020. For the EDAL summary of the final judgment, see here.

The continued and exclusive control of contracting State's authorities over individuals creates, at least, a de facto exercise of jurisdiction for the purposes of Article 1 ECHR. 

In light of Spain's jurisdiction over N.D. and N.T, who had attempted to cross the fences separating Morocco from Melilla, Spain was bound by the prohibition of collective expulsions under the Convention. A standardised response of removal to the applicants attempted entry to the Spanish territory without any identification procedure or administrative or judicial measure being first taken meant that the Spanish authorities had violated Article 4 Protocol 4 to the Convention. 
 
The collective expulsion of the applicants was clearly linked to their inability to access a national procedure which would satisfy Article 13 requirements.The applicants had, therefore, also been denied an effective and rigorous remedy which would allow them to contest the collective expulsion. 
Date of decision: 03-10-2017
Relevant International and European Legislation: European Union Law,Council of Europe Instruments,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 18,Article 19,Article 47,EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,Article 8,Article 9,Article 11,Article 12,EN - Returns Directive, Directive 2008/115/EC of 16 December 2008,Article 1,Article 2,Article 8,Article 12,Article 13,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 1,Article 13,Article 41,ECHR (Fourth Protocol),Art 4,Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010/C 83/01,EN - Treaty on European Union,Article 2,Article 6,Article 78
ECtHR - Tarakhel v. Switzerland, Application no. 29217/12
Country of applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Best interest of the child, Individual assessment, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Personal circumstances of applicant, Family unity (right to), Child Specific Considerations, Reception conditions, Responsibility for examining application, Dublin Transfer, Material reception conditions, Return, Vulnerable person

This case examined the compatibility of the Dublin II Regulation with the European Convention on Human Rights regarding transfers to Italy under the Dublin II Regulation.

The Court found a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights if the Swiss authorities were to send an Afghan couple and their six children back to Italy under the Dublin Regulation without having first obtained individual guarantees from the Italian authorities that the applicants would be taken charge of in a manner adapted to the age of the children and that the family would be kept together.

Date of decision: 04-11-2014
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,Article 4,Article 18,Article 19,Article 24,EN - Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003,EN - Dublin II Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003,Article 3,Article 8,Article 13,EN - Dublin III Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No. 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 (recast Dublin II Regulation),Article 67,Article 2,Article 6,Article 78
CJEU - C‑540/03, European Parliament v Council of the European Union
Keywords: Best interest of the child, Family reunification, Integration measures

The European Parliament sought the annulment of Article 4(1), Article 4(6) and Article 8 of the Family Reunification Directive, as being incompatible with the right to respect for family life and non-discrimination based on age.

The Court found that these provisions created a limited margin of appreciation for Member States which was no greater than that allowed for in ECtHR case law, and could be exercised compatibly with fundamental rights.

Date of decision: 27-06-2006
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 7,Article 21,Article 24,EN - Family Reunification Directive, Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003,Article 3,Article 4,Article 5,Article 8,Article 16,Article 17,Article 18,Article 8,UN Convention on the Rights of the Child,EN - Treaty on European Union,Article 6