Case summaries
A case may be re-examined in substance by the CNDA, if the facts referred to by the Applicant took place after the last decision of the CNDA or if it is proven that the Applicant could not have been aware of them prior to the previous court decision.
A person who has been a member of an armed unit which has committed systematic violence, and who has not attempted to prevent it or be dissociated from the other members is personally guilty and therefore cannot be granted the refugee status.
The right to court, which includes the principle of contradictoriness and its essential element – the possibility to get acquainted with the information in possession of the authority or the court – is not a value overriding other values protected by the national legal order.
Such an understanding is reflected in EU law – Article 13 para 1 of the Returns Directive.
In the opinion of the Court it is not inconsistent with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, bearing in mind Article 52 para. 1.
Disclosing concrete information gathered by a specialised agency, responsible for state security, enables identification of the source of information, so it can pose a threat to other persons or even exclude the possibility of obtaining any further relevant information.
In this situation, taking into account the need to protect state security there are limitations which impact upon the procedural rights of a person. However these are justifiable on account of public interest.
Hungary’s practice of not suspending its deportation procedures for second time asylum applicants amounts to a serious and unlawful interference with an applicant’s constitutionally guaranteed right to apply for refugee status.
The Supreme Court held that an immigrant whose passport or equivalent identity document reveals their minority cannot be subjected to additional tests in order to determine his age unless a proportionality judgment about the document’s reliability has first been carried out. The Court also held that medical techniques to determine an age cannot be applied indiscriminately.
The Aliens Litigation Court has cancelled a judgment by the Secretary of State for Asylum, Migration and for Social Integration, which refuses leave to remain to a Cameroon national with an order of expulsion to Cyprus, the first European State through which the applicant entered.
The decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court allowed a Dublin transfer of a woman and her infant child to Italy stating that the applicants did not sufficiently substantiate that they were at risk of living on the streets when returned to Italy.
The competent authority has to provide suitable guarantees to ensure the well-being of the infant applicant when returned to Italy.
A claim challenging the refusal to grant a visa -in order to claim asylum on French territory- qualifies as being urgent. The consular authority is not qualified to assess the asylum claim.
In light of a deterioration of safety conditions in Iraq since June 10th 2014 members of the Yazidi religious group living in the province of Ninive (Mosul) are in danger of persecution solely on the basis of their religious beliefs, from which they can’t reasonably seek effective protection from the Iraqi state nor from any other organization, which could offer protection. Furthermore they can’t now, nor will they for the foreseeable future be able to evade persecution by seeking refuge in safe havens within country boarders.
The Respondent erred in detaining the Applicant under § 88a (1)(a) point 1 of Act No 404/2011 Coll. on the residence of aliens and amending certain other Acts in proceedings relating to administrative expulsion to the Ukraine, despite being aware of the Applicant’s intention to apply for asylum. The Respondent also incorrectly assessed whether Ukraine is a safe third country as he failed to take into account recent information on the current situation in Ukraine. Moreover, in assessing the risk of absconding, the Respondent asked improper questions. As such the Respondent's conduct violates principles of good governance.
Ouseley J in the High Court held although the practice and policy of the Secretary of State in operating the Detained Fast Track System (DFT) was not unlawful in its terms, there was room for improvement. The screening process must not only focus on the suitability of a claim for fast-tracking, but it must also consider the impact that a tight timetable and detention may have on the fair presentation of a claim. In addition, lawyers must be allocated to applicants earlier to allow for meaningful instructions to be given and to allow for vulnerable status to be highlighted. Falling short of unlawfulness, the system carried too high a risk that unfair determinations would be made against applicants.