Case summaries
The Council of State applies the reasoning of ECtHR and CJEU jurisprudence to the reception conditions in Hungary to conclude that there may be a risk of ill-treatment upon return (Article 3 ECHR / Article 4 CFREU infringement) when a particularly vulnerable person who is fully dependent on state support will be confronted with "official indifference in a situation of serious deprivation or want incompatible with human dignity” upon return to Hungary.
An asylum seeker is entitled to request the temporary termination of his or her stay in an accommodation centre and to seek alternative accommodation if compliance with the distancing rules of the Saxon Corona Protection Ordinance is not possible in the centre.
The fact that an asylum seeker has already been persecuted in the past or has been subject to direct threats of persecution, was considered as a well-founded argument to believe that the applicant would face the risk to be persecuted under Article 1, Section A §2 of the 1951 Refugee Convention.
Article 48 para. 3 sentence 2 and 3 AufenthG does not offer a suitable legal basis for the search of homes.
The issue of a search warrant according to police and public order law requires concrete evidence that certain documents could be detected. The violation of the obligation to cooperate according to § 48 para. 3 sentence 1 AufenthG (refusal of the applicant to obtain a passport or similar), as well as vaguely expressed doubts of the authorities about the passport loss, are not sufficient to issue a warrant for the search of homes. Such a search warrant is in any case not proportionate if the probability of detection is low.
When national administrations assess a request for international protection, they must take more precautions when investigating the credibility of facts from the applicant’s story in case of post-traumatic stress and female genital mutilation.
The authorities must comply with their duties to cooperate with the applicant in establishing the relevant facts of the case by being cautious and meticulous before concluding that certain contradictions and inaccuracies exist.
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.