The UK Upper Tribunal released its judgment in case RSM and ZAM v SSHD  UKUT 00124 (IAC), related to the exercise of the discretionary power set forth by Article 17 of the Dublin Regulation for the purposes of reuniting the applicant, an Eritrean unaccompanied minor residing in Italy, with his family in the UK.
On 11 April 2017, the UK Supreme Court ruled on case SXH (Appellant) v The Crown Prosecution Service (Respondent)  UKSC 30, relating a Somalian national who fled persecution on the basis of her belonging to a minority clan. She reached the UK from the Netherlands using a false passport. She applied for asylum and was arrested on suspicion of committing an offence under the Identity Cards Act 2006 (being in possession of an identity card relating to someone else).
On 14 March 2017, ECtHR gave its judgment in case Thuo v. Cyprus (no. 3869/07). The case concerned a Kenyan national who complained being ill-treated when deported from Cyprus to Kenya as well as about his detention conditions in Nicosia pending his deportation. He lodged complaints with the Cypriot authorities nine and eleven months after his deportation, describing in detail his allegations of ill-treatment.
On 6 April 2017, the Court of The Hague has given a ruling related to a sexual-orientation-based asylum application by a Nigerian national. It ruled that, when deciding on the judicial review of an asylum case, particularly concerning the credibility of the asylum claim, it cannot be inferred from Article 46(3) recast Asylum Procedures Directive how invasive the assessment by the court in question must be.
On 5 April 2017 the Council of State of the Netherlands judged that the Secretary of State, by not reacting to the psychological problems of the applicant, had failed to explain why no less coercive measure than detention was taken.
On 4 April 2017, the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in case Thimothawes v. Belgium (no. 39061/11), which concerned an Egyptian asylum-seeker who was detained for five months at the Belgian border. The Court found no violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. In the judgment, the Court reiterated that any measure depriving a person of his liberty has to be prescribed by law.
On 4 April 2017, the European Court of Human Rights communicated its decision in case Muzamba Oyaw v. Belgium (no. 23707/15) by unanimously declaring the application inadmissible. The case concerned the administrative detention of a Congolese national with a view to his deportation while his partner, a Belgium national, was pregnant.
On 3 April 2017, the Administrative Court of Lyon ruled on case no. 1702564 concerning the Dublin transfer of an Afghan national to Norway. The applicant had applied for asylum in Norway, but his asylum application was rejected.
On 31 March 2017, the Administrative Court of Nice ruled in case no. 1701211 regarding two Eritrean applicants who claimed being returned to Italy by the French border police after entering the French territory and trying to apply for asylum.