Last Updated: Tuesday, 23 July 2019, 12:33 GMT

Case Law

Case Law includes national and international jurisprudential decisions. Administrative bodies and tribunals are included.
Filter:
Showing 1-10 of 12,363 results
CASE OF O.O. v. RUSSIA (Application no. 36321/16)

Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr O.O. complained that the Russian authorities had failed to consider his arguments that he would face a real risk of ill-treatment if deported to Uzbekistan. He also alleged that his deportation had disregarded the interim measure indicated by the European Court, in breach of Article 34 (right of individual petition) of the European Convention. Violation of Article 3 – on account of the authorities deporting Mr O.O. to Uzbekistan Violation of Article 34

21 May 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: Russian Federation - Uzbekistan

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL BOBEK in Case C‑556/17 Alekszij Torubarov v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Administrative and Labour Court, Pécs, Hungary))

I suggest that the Court reply to the Pécsi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Administrative and Labour Court, Pécs, Hungary) as follows: – Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, in conjunction with the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, is to be interpreted as meaning that a model of judicial review in matters of international protection in which the courts are endowed with a mere cassational power but in which the judicial guidance they issue in their annulment decisions is effectively being disregarded by the administrative bodies when deciding on the same case again, such as demonstrated in the case in the main proceedings, fails to meet the requirements of effective judicial review set out in Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32 and interpreted in the light of the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter. – A national court, deciding in circumstances such as those in the case in the main proceedings, must set aside the national rule limiting its power to the mere annulment of the relevant administrative decision. That obligation arises when the clear assessment contained in a judicial decision annulling a previous administrative decision has been disregarded by the administrative authority deciding the same case anew, without the latter bringing any new elements that it could have reasonably and legitimately brought into consideration, thus depriving the judicial protection provided for under the invoked provisions of any practical effect.

30 April 2019 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Administrative courts - Effective remedy | Countries: Hungary - Russian Federation

AFFAIRE A.M. c. FRANCE (Requête no 12148/18)

Effective domestic remedy: Effectiveness of a suspensive remedy, in respect of an asylum request submitted after the application had been lodged with the Court: admissible As to the merits, the Court went on to find, unanimously, that there would be no violation of Article 3 if the decision to deport the applicant to Algeria were implemented.

29 April 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Exhaustion of domestic remedies - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Algeria - France

Arrêt n° 219 682

11 April 2019 | Judicial Body: Belgium: Conseil du Contentieux des Etrangers | Topic(s): Corruption - Credibility assessment - Security situation - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Afghanistan - Belgium

BF (Tirana – gay men) Albania [2019] UKUT 0093 (IAC)

Whether there is a sufficiency of protection from harm by the state for the appellant in his home area in Albania and if not whether there is protection available for him in Tirana or elsewhere. If it is, whether it is reasonably open to the appellant to relocate to Tirana (or elsewhere) in the light of his sexual orientation as a gay man.

26 March 2019 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Country of origin information (COI) - Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) | Countries: Albania - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

SM v Entry Clearance Officer, UK Visa Section (C-129/18) (request for preliminary ruling)

The concept of a ‘direct descendant’ of a citizen of the Union referred to in Article 2(2)(c) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC must be interpreted as not including a child who has been placed in the permanent legal guardianship of a citizen of the Union under the Algerian kafala system, because that placement does not create any parent-child relationship between them. However, it is for the competent national authorities to facilitate the entry and residence of such a child as one of the other family members of a citizen of the Union pursuant to Article 3(2)(a) of that directive, read in the light of Article 7 and Article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, by carrying out a balanced and reasonable assessment of all the current and relevant circumstances of the case which takes account of the various interests in play and, in particular, of the best interests of the child concerned. In the event that it is established, following that assessment, that the child and its guardian, who is a citizen of the Union, are called to lead a genuine family life and that that child is dependent on its guardian, the requirements relating to the fundamental right to respect for family life, combined with the obligation to take account of the best interests of the child, demand, in principle, that that child be granted a right of entry and residence in order to enable it to live with its guardian in his or her host Member State.

26 March 2019 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Adoption - Family reunification | Countries: Algeria - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Décision n° 2018-768 QPC du 21 mars 2019

Full text of the decision available at https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision/2019/2018768QPC.htm

21 March 2019 | Judicial Body: France: Conseil constitutionnel | Topic(s): Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: France

Ferenc Feher, Richard Sebok and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers et al (applicants) v. the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (respondent)

paragraph 112(2) (b.1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27, is declared to be inconsistent with subsection 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11, insofar as it concerns nationals of countries designated pursuant to section 109.1(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; and the following words - “or, in the case of a person who is a national of a country that is designated under subsection 109.1(1), less than 36 months,” - in paragraph 112(2) (b.1) shall have no force or effect with respect to such nationals;

20 March 2019 | Judicial Body: Canada: Federal Court | Topic(s): Constitutional law - Equality before the law - Safe country of origin | Countries: Canada - Hungary

E. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (C‑635/17) (request for preliminary ruling)

1. The Court of Justice of the European Union has jurisdiction, on the basis of Article 267 TFEU, to interpret Article 11(2) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where a national court is called upon to rule on an application for family reunification lodged by a beneficiary of subsidiary protection, if that provision was made directly and unconditionally applicable to such a situation under national law. 2. Article 11(2) of Directive 2003/86 must be interpreted as precluding, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, in which an application for family reunification has been lodged by a sponsor benefiting from subsidiary protection in favour of a minor of whom she is the aunt and allegedly the guardian, and who resides as a refugee and without family ties in a third country, that application from being rejected solely on the ground that the sponsor has not provided official documentary evidence of the death of the minor’s biological parents and, consequently, that she has an actual family relationship with him, and that the explanation given by the sponsor to justify her inability to provide such evidence has been deemed implausible by the competent authorities solely on the basis of the general information available concerning the situation in the country of origin, without taking into consideration the specific circumstances of the sponsor and the minor and the particular difficulties they have encountered, according to their testimony, before and after fleeing their country of origin.

13 March 2019 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Complementary forms of protection - Country of origin information (COI) - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Family reunification | Countries: Eritrea - Netherlands

WA (PAKISTAN) v. THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

the appropriate guidance for a decision-maker can be summarised as follows: i) Is the Claimant genuinely an Ahmadi? In answering that question the guidance set out in paragraph 5 of the headnote in MN is well expressed. ii) The next step involves an inquiry into the Claimant’s behaviour if he or she is returned to Pakistan. Will he or she actually behave in such a way as to attract persecution? In answering that question, the decision-maker will again consider all the evidence and will, where appropriate, expressly consider whether the behaviour claimed by the asylum-seeker is genuinely an expression of their religious belief and is an authentic account of the way they will behave if returned. iii) If the decision-maker’s conclusion is that the Claimant, if returned to Pakistan, will avoid behaviour which would attract persecution, then the decision-maker must ask the question why that would be so. Many possibilities arise. The individual may genuinely wish to live quietly, and would do so whether or not repression existed in relation to the expression of his or her Ahmadi faith. The individual may have mixed motives for such behaviour. If such a quiet expression or manifestation of genuine Ahmadi belief is merely the result of established cultural norms or social pressures, then it is unlikely there will be a basis for asylum. However, if a material reason (and not necessarily the only reason) for such behaviour will be to avoid persecution, then it is likely that the Claimant will have a valid claim for asylum. There is no requirement that public expression of Ahmadi religious faith, of a kind which is likely to attract persecution, should be of “particular importance” to the Claimant. Such a requirement is inconsistent with the test as laid down in HJ (Iran). To that extent, the guidance given in the body of MN (Ahmadis) Pakistan CG and in the headnote is misleading and should not be followed.

6 March 2019 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) | Topic(s): Ahmadis - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) | Countries: Pakistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Search Refworld