Case summaries

The applicant, a minor, an Afghan citizen, ethnic Pashtun and a Sunni Muslim from Chahar Dara district in Kunduz Province, feared if returned to Afghanistan he would be killed or forcibly recruited by the Taliban.

The Board notes that the applicant is 15 years old, Pashtun, illiterate and the eldest son of the family where the father was killed in 2015. Further, the Board notes that according to country of origin information it is credible that the Taliban recruits young men and boys in Chahar Dara.

With reference to the applicant being a minor and without a network the Board did not find the internal flight alternative relevant or reasonable.

The Board hereafter found that the applicant had rendered probable that if returned to Afghanistan he would risk suffering serious harm covered by the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (2) and granted the applicant subsidiary protection under this article.

Analysing the legality of the refusal to grant child benefit payments to parents who are not habitually resident within the State for the benefit of their children.

The applicant was granted refugee status under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (1) because of the threat of forced marriage in Afghanistan. The applicant belonged to the particular social group of “widows in risk of forced marriage”. The Afghan State is neither willing nor able to protect women against persecution in case of forced marriage. Internal protection was not available to the applicant.

Wishing to challenge his transfer to Germany from Luxembourg, the applicant appealed this decision and the court found that, on the basis of CJEU jurisprudence, all individuals had a right to contest the manner in which the Dublin III criteria are applied. 

This case primarily dealt with the lawfulness of a prolonged period of detention in the context of whether there was a reasonable prospect of deportation and also of evidence of both current mental illness and previous torture and trafficking.

In some cases of severe illness Art. 3 ECHR precludes a deportation even though a treatment in the state of origin is possible. If the appellant cannot bear the costs of the treatment or the necessary concomitant medication the renewed increase of the illness and therefore a real life-threatening risk is probable which precludes the deportation of the applicant. 

In this application, the associations ask the Council of State to annul, for abuse of power, the decree n°2015-1329 of 21 October 2015 on the allowance granted to asylum seekers.

This decree is here annulled by the Council of State because its article 2 doesn’t provide for a sufficient additional amount for adult asylum seekers to allow them to seek private housing when they weren’t provided with an accommodation but had accepted material reception conditions. 

Switzerland is not the responsible Member State pursuant to Articles 6 and 8 of the Dublin III Regulation, since the unaccompanied minor lives in a foster family in the Netherlands and the Dutch authorities should take into consideration the factors of Article 6 (3) Dublin III Regulation, including the views of the minor. According to the court, Nidos (the guardianship institution for unaccompanied minors in the Netherlands) is an expert institution and its advice should be followed in assessing the best interest of the child.

Request to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling in the following issues:

1.       Transfer of responsibility to the requesting member state under the Dublin Regulations due to procedural delay

2.        Interlinked to this question is whether the plaintiff has a right to request a change of Member State’s responsibility.

3.        Additional questions concern compliance with the Dublin Regulations and its correct implementation, primarily                      relating to the point at which an application for international protection is deemed to be filed.

On the basis of CJEU jurisprudence, the administrative tribunal found that all asylum applicants have a right to appeal the manner in which the responsibility criteria of Dublin III has been applied to their individual case and the determination of a responsible Member State where there are systemic deficiencies.