Case summaries

Article 3 of the ECHR imposes an absolute obligation on contracting States not to deport an asylum seeker where doing so would expose him or her to a genuine and serious risk of violence. Under the discretionary clause in Article 17(1) of the Dublin III Regulation, this remains the case where the application does not fall within the immediate responsibilities of that State.

Both applicants seek legal assistance and to register their application for asylum, which was previously refused by the Alpes Maritimes Prefect. The interim relief judge decided that the Prefect’s refusal to provide the individuals with an application form to register their application for asylum, notwithstanding their presence within the territory and contact with the police, amounted to a serious breach of the right to asylum.  

Article 10 of Dublin III is inapplicable; Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the regulation provide for three different procedural situations, the applicant’s claim could lead to a separation of the family. 

The Court quashed the decision of the Office of Immigration and Nationality (OIN). The OIN based its decision on classified information obtained from the Constitutional Protection Office (CPO), which stated that the Applicant poses a threat to Hungary’s national security, and that he shall not be granted protection, with due regard to Article 1 f) c) of the Geneva Convention. The OIN failed to communicate the CPO’s opinion to the Applicant for nine months. The Court assessed that the proceedings were ‘exceptionally unlawful’.

The Migration Court of Appeal considered the applicant’s ability to obtain subsidiary protection status based on his need for protection as a Shia Hazara and a minor.
The Court denied the appeal by the Migration Agency and granted the defendant subsidiary protection status. 

Request to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the following issues: Procedural delay, jurisdiction and living conditions under the Dublin Regulation. 

It was unlawful to detain an unaccompanied asylum seeking child, even in the reasonable belief that he was an adult.

The application of S.C. and her minor children Z.C. and F.C. related to the cassation of an Appeal Court judgement regarding compensation for the harm they suffered as a result of an indisputably unjust decision to place the Applicants in a Guarded Detention Centre for Foreigners. The Supreme Court reversed the challenged judgement and passed the case to the Appeal Court for re-consideration. 

It is not reasonably likely that a draft-evader would face criminal/administrative proceedings in Ukraine but there is a real risk that a person sentenced to imprisonment in Ukraine would be detained on arrival there and that detention conditions would breach Article 3 ECHR.

The Court of Appeal in this case focused on two main questions: 

1) To what extent is the decision-maker on an application for international protection obliged to investigate the authenticity of documents relied upon by the applicant in those cases where here credibility is challenged; and

2) Whether sufficient steps were taken to ensure that the documentary materials provided by the applicant were in fact proven to be authentic.