Case summaries
The High Court has issued a judgment following an application for an interim order. The matter concerns the accommodation of asylum-seekers who display Covid-19 symptoms, who bears the responsibility for accommodating asylum-seekers who are symptomatic, and the communication of policy and practice in this area.
Well-grounded information is of central importance to any decision to exclude a person convicted for criminal matters from international protection in accordance with Article 1 F of the 1951 Refugee Convention.
The right to be heard (Art. 103 par. 1 German Basic Law - Grundgesetz) guarantees every party access to all documents relevant for the decision, which includes status reports on the applicant’s country of origin in asylum cases.
The right to be heard also guarantees that the court takes all information and evidence into account presented by the applicant. § 74 Abs. 2 Asylum Act (Asylgesetz) limits the time period in which an applicant may present information and evidence to one month, however this only refers to information and evidence concerning the applicant’s personal experiences (individueller Lebensbereich). Information and evidence i.e. on the overall situation in the country may also be presented after a month.
Germany is responsible for the asylum determination of an oppositional Turkish applicant under Art. 3 para. 2 subparas 2 and 3 Dublin III Regulation, because in this individual case the Bulgarian asylum procedure has systemic flaws that would entail a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. A serious examination of the asylum application cannot be expected by the Bulgarian authorities and the authorities will likely return the applicant to Turkey. In such a case, there are reasonable grounds for believing that there would be a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights due to the complainant’s own or family member’s opposition activities.
Given the emergency of the situation, family reunification could only be refused in circumstances where the relevant individual does not comply with principles of public order.
As a result, the Court concluded that there were serious doubts as to the legality of the decisions refusing family reunification.
The Dublin transfers, which have been suspended indefinitely due to the so-called Corona pandemic, constitute a domestic-related obstacle to execution in the sense of an objective impossibility which leads to a temporary suspension of deportation (Duldung) in accordance with § 60a para. 2 sentence 1 AufenthG.
The suspension constitutes a subsequent change in circumstances leading to the order of suspensive effect pursuant to § 80 para. 7 VwGO.
An application for a revision of a final court decision of the Swiss Federal Court is only admissible if the applicant presents new relevant facts or evidence which he was not able to provide in previous proceedings even if he had acted with due diligence.
If the new evidence relates to another person’s hearing files (in the case at hand a relative’s hearing protocol before the Swiss asylum authority) the fact that the files could not be retrieved during the proceedings cannot be attributed to the applicant if he lacked the required consent from the person concerned to access the files. By rule of principle, it is the asylum authority’s duty to consult relevant documents for the assessment of an application which is notably the case for statements made by family relatives if the factual circumstances on which the respective applications are based are closely related.
The Court concluded on the immediate release of an Egyptian national from detention. The judgment referred to the detention conditions for vulnerable persons that suffer from serious health conditions during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Due to the COVID-19 health crisis, and especially the cancellation of flights to the applicant’s country of origin, the continuation of immigration detention is no longer required because an effective return cannot be considered anymore as a reasonable perspective.
In the midst of the health crisis, the judge of liberty and detention of the Lille Judicial Tribunal considered that the health risk for the Applicant as well as for a third party, generated by the extension of the administrative detention was disproportionate to the perspectives of return. Especially since most countries had closed their borders.
As a result, the judge held that there was no reason to extend the duration of the Applicant’s detention.