Communicated cases against Denmark, Switzerland, Hungary, and Belgium

Date: 
Monday, September 23, 2019

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has recently communicated the following asylum-related cases:

  • Munir Johana v. Denmark (Application No. 56803/18): The applicant is an Iraqi national who has lived in Denmark since he was 4 years old. The applicant previously had two conditional expulsion decisions following criminal convictions. On 19 September 2018, the applicant was convicted in a Supreme Court judgment. He was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment and issued an order for expulsion with a ban on re-entry for 6 years. The applicant complains that the return decision violates his rights under Article 8 of the Convention. 
  • Khan v. Denmark (Application No. 26957/19): The applicant is a Pakistani national who was born in Denmark. The applicant was previously issued with a conditional expulsion decision. By a final Supreme Court judgment of 20 November 2018, the applicant was convicted, inter alia, of threatening a police officer. He was sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment and an order for expulsion with a ban on re-entry for 6 years was imposed on him. The applicant complains that the return decision violates his rights under Article 8 of the Convention. 
  • B. and C. v. Switzerland (Application No. 889/19): The first applicant, a national of Gambia, is the same as in the pending case of B. v. Switzerland (Application no. 43987/16) relating to an alleged violation of Article 3 regarding his return to Gambia. The present application concerns the refusal of a residence permit for the first applicant – submitted on the ground of his registered same-sex partnership with the second applicant, a Swiss national –, owing to the first applicant’s criminal conviction and his conduct in Switzerland, as well as the order of the first applicant’s expulsion. The questions posed to the parties include questions of return to a country other than Gambia and the assessment conducted by the government in making the return decision, in light of findings in I.M. v. Switzerland and J.K. v. Sweden. 
  • Dshijri v Hungary (Application no. 21325/16): The applicant is an Iraqi national. On the 25 September 2015, he attempted to cross the Hungarian border from Ukraine. The applicant was stopped by a border guard and taken into custody, as he was unable to present valid identity documents. The applicant subsequently applied for international protection and was detained until the end of the procedure due to an alleged absence of other less stringent measures to secure the applicant’s availability during the proceedings. The applicant complains that his detention violated Article 5(1) of the Convention, arguing that the detention was arbitrary and founded on “stereotypical reasoning”. 
  • El Khouardi v. Belgium (Application no. 39864/16): The applicant is a Moroccan national who arrived in Belgium in 2002. He was subject to a Ministerial Removal Order on the 2 October 2008. After serving a prison sentence, the applicant married a Belgian national in 2010 and went on to have three children. He was subsequently granted a residence permit. On the 10 October 2014, the Aliens Office issued an order to the applicant to leave the country on the grounds that he was residing unlawfully. In response, the applicant argued that his valid residence permit should have prevented this, and referred the matter to the Aliens Litigation Council. The attempt to annul the removal order was dismissed as the Ministerial Removal Order enforced in October 2008 was still in effect. The Council of State rejected his appeal of this decision. The applicant complains that this interference violates his right to private and family life under Article 8 of the Convention. In particular, the applicant indicated that the State failed to adequately consider the relationships he has established since his arrival. The applicant also complains that the lack of an effective remedy constitutes a violation under Article 13 of the Convention.

          Based on an unofficial translation by the EWLU team.


This item was reproduced with the permission of ECRE from the ELENA Weekly Legal Update. The purpose of these updates is to inform asylum lawyers and legal organizations supporting asylum seekers and refugees of recent developments in the field of asylum law. Please note that the information provided is taken from publicly available information on the internet. Every reasonable effort is made to make the content accurate and up to date at the time each item is published but no responsibility for its accuracy and correctness, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by ECRE.