• The Upper Tribunal ordered the Secretary of State for the Home Department to immediately admit four vulnerable Syrians from an unofficial migrant camp in France to the United Kingdom in order to be reunited with refugee family members during the examination their asylum applications. Although they had not applied for asylum in France or been subject to Dublin procedures, the particular circumstances meant that failing to do so would lead to a disproportionate interference with their right to respect for family life. 

  • On 23 December 2015,  the Debrecen Administrative and Labour Court in Hungary has referred a number of questions to the CJEU for an urgent preliminary ruling in Case C-695/15 PPU, Mirza. The case relates to a national of Pakistan who claimed asylum in Hungary in August 2015, having entered from Serbia. He then left his designated place of residence and his application was discontinued by the Hungarian authorities as he was deemed to have abandoned his application. 

  • This fact sheet is devoted to jurisprudence preventing transfers under Regulation 604/2013 (Dublin III Regulation) to Hungary. Its scope is limited to case law from European Union Member States supported by policy and non-governmental material to illustrate the grounds on which the judiciary are suspending transfers to Hungary. 

  • In a landmark decision by the Upper Tribunal on 20 January 2016, it has ordered the Secretary of State for the Home Department to admit four asylum seekers, currently residing in the ‘Jungle’ in Calais, to the UK, with a view to determining their applications under the Dublin III Regulation. The four applicants are nationals of Syria, including three unaccompanied minors and the adult dependent brother of one of them, who suffers from mental health problems. Each has a brother in the UK who has been recognised as a refugee. 

  • The case relates to an Iranian national who claimed asylum in the Netherlands. He was detained pursuant to national law implementing Articles 8 (3)a) and 8(3)b) of the recast Reception Conditions Directive, on the grounds that this was necessary in order to determine his identity or nationality; and as it was necessary to obtain information necessary for assessing claim for international protection, given that there was a risk of absconding. He challenged his detention. He is yet to receive a first instance decision on his asylum claim and has not been issued with a return decision.  

Latest News


UK: R on the application of ZAT and others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department

Date: 
Thursday, January 21, 2016

This case was a judicial review test case before the Upper Tribunal (UT) concerning seven Syrian applicants. Four were living in the unofficial camp near Calais known as ‘the Jungle’, infamous for its conditions of squalor, as recently criticised by the Lille Administrative Tribunal.

Belgium: CALL annuls Dublin III transfer to France due to inadequate assessment of effectiveness of access to healthcare for asylum seekers

Date: 
Thursday, January 14, 2016

This case relates to an Algerian national who claimed asylum in Belgium on 18 May 2015. After a ‘take charge’ request, the French authorities agreed to accept responsibility for his application pursuant to Article 12(2) of the Dublin III Regulation. The Belgian authorities therefore issued a decision refusing to grant the applicant entry and issued an order for him to leave the territory.
 

CJEU: Advocate General opinion, Case C-47/15 Affum v Prefet du Pas de Calais

Date: 
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
Case C-47/15 relates to a national of Ghana, Ms Affum, who was intercepted by French police on 22 March 2013 at Coquelles, the entrance of the Channel tunnel, while transiting through French territory on a bus from Belgium to the UK. She had no identity documents except a Belgian passport with the name and photo of another person.

Latest Cases


Beslutande stat: United Kingdom , Sökandes ursprungsland: Syria , Nyckelord: Best interest of the child, Family member, Family reunification, Family unity (right to), Material reception conditions, Reception conditions, Request that charge be taken, Responsibility for examining application, Unaccompanied minor, Vulnerable person , Avgörandedatum: 29-01-2016

The Upper Tribunal ordered the Secretary of State for the Home Department to immediately admit four vulnerable Syrians from an unofficial migrant camp in France to the United Kingdom in order to be reunited with refugee family members during the examination their asylum applications. Although they had not applied for asylum in France or been subject to Dublin procedures, the particular circumstances meant that failing to do so would lead to a disproportionate interference with their right to respect for family life. 

Sökandes ursprungsland: Tunisia , Nyckelord: Detention, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Individual assessment, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Procedural guarantees , Avgörandedatum: 01-09-2015

The Court found that three nationals of Tunisia had been unlawfully detained upon arrival in Italy, first in a reception centre and then on board ships, where they were not provided information and had no opportunity to challenge their detention.

In addition, the conditions in the reception centre amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.

Finally, the Court found that the applicants had been subject to collective expulsion, as despite being identified individually and being issued with separate repatriation decrees, their individual circumstances had not been genuinely considered prior to their return to Tunisia. 

Beslutande stat: Ireland , Sökandes ursprungsland: Brazil , Nyckelord: Best interest of the child, Child Specific Considerations, Family member, Family unity (right to) , Avgörandedatum: 30-07-2015

Non-Citizen children of the State have rights protected by the Constitution when in the State, including rights under Article 41, 42 and 40.3. However, the right to reside in the State is a protection under Article 40.3 which is reserved for Irish citizen children. It is the citizenship of the child that confers this right to live in the State under Article 40.3.

The best interests of the child are considerations that must be assessed when deciding upon a deportation order for a child. However, as the Convention on the Rights of Child has been ratified by Ireland but has not been implemented as part of domestic law, the Court is not bound to view the best interests of the child as the primary consideration.

About EDAL


The European Database of Asylum Law (EDAL) is an online database co-ordinated by the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) and a compilation of summaries of refugee and asylum case law from the courts of 17 EU Member States, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The summaries are published in English and in the relevant Member State’s national language.

For more information please see here.

If you are interested in contributing an article on a relevant subject to the EDAL blog or would like to inform us about an important national judgment, please kindly send an email to Amanda Taylor (ataylor@ecre.org) or Julia Zelvenska (jzelvenska@ecre.org).