Case summaries
The impossibility to proceed with an asylum applicant’s transfer to another Member State responsible for examining the asylum application is established once there is a clear and real risk for the interested party to be subject to torture or inhuman or degrading treatments within the meaning of articles 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU), even in the absence of having serious reasons to believe there are systemic failures in the Member State’s asylum system.
In the lack of audiovisual recording of the interview, the Judge must set the appearance hearing, otherwise being the decree issued null and void for the breach of the adversarial principle.
In direct application of Art. 15 (2) of the Reception Conditions Directive, according to which asylum applicants must be given effective access to the labour market, the requirements of the Act Governing the Employment of Foreign Nationals (AuslBG) must be modified. The non-existence of a unanimous approval by the Regional Council pursuant to Art. 4 (3) AuslBG does not preclude the granting of employment permits to asylum applicants.
The case deals with the illegitimacy of denying the registration of an international protection request on the basis of the request being issued before a non-competent authority and lacking the criterion of “autonomous accommodation”.
The applicant appealed the Migration Court’s decision to dismiss his application for asylum on grounds of the availability of an internal protection alternative in the applicants home country of Afghanistan.
The Migration Court of Appeal granted the appeal as it was held that the question of internal protection can only be assessed after the court has made an individual assessment of the original grounds for protection invoked by the applicant.
The applicant, a Chinese citizen, feared, if she returned to China, she would be persecuted and exposed to torture by the Chinese Communist Government due to her Falun Gong activities.
The Refugee Appeals Board did not find that she was a particular profiled member of Falun Gong or that she was wanted by the Chinese Authorities as she left China legally notwithstanding that she had been detained several times for shorter periods and imprisoned for seven years during which she was exposed to torture. However, the Board found that the Chinese Authorities were aware of the applicant ‘s political positions regarding Falun Gong and the human rights situation in China due to comprehensive media activities and participation in demonstrations in Copenhagen. Therefore, after an overall assessment including the fact that the applicant had been imprisoned for seven years, the Board granted the applicant reugee status under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (1).
Courts must establish the current situation of the region from which the complainant originates or which can be considered as an internal flight alternative and relate it to the individual situation of the complainant in the grounds of the decision.
In the case of a Sunni Iraqi, the lower instance court did not sufficiently consider the complainant’s region of origin, the possibility of return to that region or the possibility of internal flight. Thereby the court violated the right to equal treatment among foreigners.
The complainant, a Somali Citizen and a Sufi Muslim from Jaameel Sheen, Hiiraan Region, Somalia, had been detained and tortured by al-Shabaab due to teaching English.
Based on a consistent account in accordance with a medico-legal report from a torture investigation and country of origin information the Board found the applicant profiled in relation to al-Shabaab.
The applicant was granted subsidiary protection under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (2).
The Constitutional Council decides on the constitutionality of the deadline to appeal against a return order, as applicable to a third-country national being detained, under paragraph 4 of Article L. 512-1 of the Code of Entry and Stay of Foreigners and the Right to Asylum (CESEDA). The Council decides hereby that the deadline proves to be too short- consequently unconstitutional- to effectively exercise the right to remedy in the context of detention.
The request submitted by the Italian authorities to Norway to take back the applicant would imply his immediate repatriation to his country of origin, Afghanistan, which, in the light of the Court’s reasoning, is not to be considered a safe country.