Case summaries

Even if the conditions for considering a subsequent application as inadmissible are fulfilled, the Ministry of Interior is still obliged to consider whether the applicant is in danger of serious harm upon return to his or her country of origin.

French legislative provisions concerning the non suspensive effect of the judicial remedy under the accelerated procedure are not manifestly incompatible with the Asylum Procedures Directive and the Reception Conditions Directives.  

An Armenian opposition politician was considered a political refugee by the Migration Court of Appeal. Both the Migration Board and the Migration Court believed the applicant's political commitment and account of events. The Board considered, however, that the Armenian authorities' actions were not unreasonable and dismissed the application.

The Migration Court stated the fact that the applicant was not imprisoned for long periods did not imply that the arrests and ill-treatment that took place could be considered as acceptable measures by the authorities. Nor could the actions of the authorities be considered as reasonable or acceptable.  The applicant was considered to be the victim of persecution that was rooted in his political belief.

The Court considered whether an application for international protection by an applicant of Russian nationality based on experiences of persecution in Lithuania (country of asylum) could be dismissed based on the reasoning that Lithuania is deemed to be a safe country of asylum. The Administrative Court held that the question of whether the applicants are in need of international protection based on the treatment they have received in their country of asylum, Lithuania, could not be examined in an asylum procedure in Lithuania.

The case concerned an appeal before the High National Court against the decision of the Spanish Asylum and Refugee Office (Ministry of Interior) rejecting an application for refugee status based on the fact that the applicant entered the EU through Greece. Therefore, following the Dublin II Regulation, Greece would be the responsible country for examining the application for asylum. The High National Court stated that after passing the six month period established by Art 19.3 of the Regulation CE/343/2003 without executing the transfer of the applicant to a Member State considered responsible for the examination, Spain was the responsible country for the case.

The Applicant’s fear that he will be forced to fight against persons of the same nationality as part of the compulsory military service may, regarding a particular country of origin and specific nationality, represent a well-founded fear of persecution relevant to asylum.

This case concerned the application of the principle of family unity, where the sponsor had been granted asylum and subsequently acquired the nationality of the country of refuge.

This case concerned fair procedures, namely the right of an applicant to an oral hearing of his asylum appeal. The Court held that a fair appeal does not necessarily impute a right to be heard orally.

The accelerated procedure (in this case, applicants from a safe country of origin) guarantees the individual assessment of the applicant’s situation and their right to a remedy with suspensive effect.