Case Law

The Court held that once the authorities had become aware of a credible suspicion that an individual had been trafficked, he or she should be assessed by a qualified person. Any decision to prosecute should follow such an assessment, and while the decision would not necessarily be binding on a prosecutor, the prosecutor would need to have clear reasons for reaching a different conclusion. In the case of both V.C.L. and A.N., the Court found that despite the existence of credible suspicion that they had been trafficked, neither the police nor the prosecution service had referred them to a competent authority for assessment; although both cases were subsequently reviewed by the prosecution service, it disagreed with the conclusion of the competent authority without giving clear reasons capable of undermining the competent authority’s conclusions; and the Court of Appeal limited itself to addressing whether the decision to prosecute had been an abuse of process. The Court therefore found that there had been a violation of Article 4 in both applicants’ cases. The Court found that, although the authorities had made some accommodations to the applicants after their guilty verdicts, the lack of any assessment of whether the applicants had been victims of trafficking may have prevented them from securing important evidence capable of helping their defence. As such the proceedings had not been fair, leading to a violation of Article 6 § 1.

16 February 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Survivors of trafficking / Persons at risk of trafficking - Trafficking in persons | Countries: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - Viet Nam

4 December 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Prison or detention conditions | Countries: Cyprus - Viet Nam

4 May 2016 | Judicial Body: Australia: Administrative Appeals Tribunal | Topic(s): 1951 Refugee Convention - Credibility assessment - Forced marriage - Persecution on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity - Social group discrimination - Social group persecution - Transgression of social / cultural norms | Countries: Australia - Viet Nam

30 July 2015 | Judicial Body: Australia: Administrative Appeals Tribunal | Topic(s): 1951 Refugee Convention - Catholic - Christian - Freedom of religion - Human rights activists - Police - Protests / Demonstrations / Riots / Civil unrest - Religious discrimination - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) | Countries: Australia - Viet Nam

On appeal from [2013] EWCA Civ 616 (see "Related document").

25 March 2015 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Supreme Court | Topic(s): Citizenship / Nationality law - Statelessness - Withdrawal of nationality | Countries: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - Viet Nam

25 March 2015 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Survivors of trafficking / Persons at risk of trafficking - Trafficking in persons | Countries: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - Viet Nam

17 July 2014 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Illegal immigrants / Undocumented migrants - Immigration Detention - Prison or detention conditions | Countries: Germany - Viet Nam

30 April 2014 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Illegal immigrants / Undocumented migrants - Immigration Detention - Prison or detention conditions | Countries: Germany - Morocco - Syrian Arab Republic - Viet Nam

11 July 2013 | Judicial Body: Germany: Bundesgerichtshof | Countries: Germany - Viet Nam