The applicants are Iraqi nationals whose asylum claims were rejected by Sweden and who face deportation. Before the European Court of Human Rights, two of the applicants alleged that they would be at risk of being the victims of an honour-related crime due to their relationships with women that were disapproved of by their families. In the other six cases, the applicants alleged they would be at risk of persecution due to being Christians, which constitute a religious minority in the country.
Statewatch has published an analysis of the Commission's proposal for new rules for Frontex sea operations signed by Marie Martin. The analysis concludes that the proposal does not clarify Frontex's responsibility for and in joint operations and warns that it may contain provisions contrary to the principle of non-refoulement, given that in case of interception on the high seas, disembarkation may take place in the third country from which the ship departed.
UNHCR has acknowledged in its December update note that Hungary does no longer deny in-merit examination of asylum claims where the applicants have previously transited through Serbia or Ukraine, and consequently has amended its previous position from October 2012 where it urged Member States to stop sending back to Hungary applicants who had transited Serbia. According to UNHCR, those applicants have ceased to be detained or returned to Serbia or Ukraine.
The British High Court decided this week that a group of Tamils the UK Border Agency intended to deport back to Sri Lanka should stay in the United Kingdom until an upcoming Country Guidance case concerning the safety of returned failed asylum seekers in Sri Lanka is decided. As the High Court considered that the guidance on Sri Lanka was being considered virtually afresh and that the existing country guidance will have to change, the suspension on the removal of all Tamil failed asylum seekers was ordered.
The applicant, A.L., is a Togolese national who was born in 1988 and currently lives in Salzburg (Austria). He arrived at Vienna airport in November 2008 and immediately claimed asylum. His application was dismissed in May 2010 and his expulsion ordered. A member of the opposition political party in Togo (Union des Forces de Changement), he alleges that, if returned to Togo, he would be at risk of persecution and even death.
The case concerns an asylum seeker who entered the EU illegally via Greece, did not ask for asylum there and traveled on via the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Serbia to Hungary and Austria. He then asked for asylum in Austria. The question was whether or not Greece was still the responsible Member State under Art. 10.1 of the Dublin Regulation, even though the asylum seeker had left the territory of the Member States and re-entered it, or if by leaving the Member States’ territory the link to Greece’s responsibility had “broken” and Hungary was now responsible.
A new report by the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM) outlines ways for advocates to engage with legal systems on national and international levels. Drawing on discussions among representatives from key monitoring bodies, legal experts, and service providers at PICUM’s Annual Workshop, the report is a guide for practitioners that can be used to enforce the fundamental rights of undocumented migrants through mechanisms at the national level and in the EU, the Council of Europe, and the UN.
Next Tuesday, the CJEU will be holding a hearing concerning the case of Abdullahi, a preliminary reference lodged by the Austrian Asylum Court (Asylgerichtshof) in August 2012 concerning the Dublin Regulation. The questions referred are the following:
(Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2008/115/EC - Common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals - legal consequences of failing to respect the rights of the defence in a decision extending detention for the purpose of removal - does not automatically lift the detention)
