Case Law

The Court further notes that the move in international law towards adopting alternative measures to the administrative detention of migrants appears to concern not only children, but also their parents. violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the failure of both the Istanbul Magistrates’ Court and the Constitutional Court to conduct a review of the lawfulness of their detention in an effective and speedy manner. The Court notes, once again, that the review mechanism set out under Law no. 6458 appears to be wholly ineffective in a case, such as the present one, where the detention of a minor in the immigration context is not based on an administrative decision.

17 October 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Effective remedy - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Prison or detention conditions - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Russian Federation - Turkey

The Court held that "- that O.D.’s removal to Syria would amount to a violation of Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights - that there had been a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), read in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3. The Court found, in particular, that in view of the overall situation in Syria and the individual risk faced by the applicant it could not be established that he could safely return to Syria. The Court also found that the applicant had not had access to an effective remedy, noting that his request for a stay of execution of the expulsion order had been rejected on the grounds that he posed a threat to national security, and that the proceedings relating to the application for refugee status or humanitarian status had not been aimed at reviewing the lawfulness of the expulsion order or its effects in relation to the complaints concerning the right to life and the right not to be subjected to ill-treatment. ..."

10 October 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Effective remedy - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Right to life | Countries: Bulgaria - Syrian Arab Republic

The case concerned media access to reception facilities for asylum-seekers. The applicant in the case, a journalist for an Internet news portal, complained about the authorities’ refusal of his request to carry out interviews and take photographs at the Debrecen Reception Centre, thus preventing him from reporting on the living conditions there. The Court stressed that research work was an essential part of press freedom and had to be protected. It was not convinced that restricting the applicant’s ability to carry out such research work, which had prevented him from reporting first-hand on a matter of considerable public interest, namely the refugee crisis in Hungary, had been sufficiently justified. In particular, the authorities had only given summary reasons, namely possible problems for the safety and private lives of asylum-seekers, for their refusal, without any real weighing up of the interests at stake.

8 October 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Freedom of expression | Countries: Hungary

The case concerned the conditions of detention of Syrian, Afghan and Palestinian nationals in the “hotspots” of Vial and Souda (Greece), and the lawfulness of their detention in those camps. The Court considered that the authorities had done all that could reasonably be expected of them in the Vial camp to meet the obligation to provide care and protection to unaccompanied minors. The other applicants had been transferred immediately – or within ten days – from the Vial camp to the Souda camp. The Court also held that the conditions of detention in the Souda camp did not amount to inhuman or degrading treatment. The Court reiterated its previous finding that a period of one month’s detention in the Vial camp should not be considered excessive, given the time needed to comply with the relevant administrative formalities. In addition, the length of the applicants’ detention once they had expressed their wish to apply for asylum had been relatively short. In contrast, the applicants, who did not have legal assistance, had not been able to understand the content of the information brochure; in particular, they were unable to understand the material relating to the various appeal possibilities available under domestic law.

3 October 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Access to procedures - Arbitrary arrest and detention - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Legal representation / Legal aid - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Afghanistan - Greece - Palestine, State of - Syrian Arab Republic

The applicants have shown that they have a clear right to the relief they ultimately seek in the main application, a well-grounded apprehension of harm and no other satisfactory remedy. The respondents seek to have the Immigration Act trump the Refugees Act. This is contrary to the injunction in the Ruta case that the two statutes can and should be read in harmony. The applicants are thus entitled to the interim relief they seek, i.e. that they be issued with section 22 permits.

2 September 2019 | Judicial Body: South Africa: High Court | Topic(s): Refugees sur place - Rejected asylum-seekers | Countries: Burundi - South Africa

The situation in Sudan remains volatile after civil protests started in late 2018 and the future is unpredictable. There is insufficient evidence currently available to show that the guidance given in AA (non-Arab Darfuris - relocation) Sudan CG [2009] UKAIT 00056 and MM (Darfuris) Sudan CG [2015] UKUT 00010 (IAC) requires revision. Those cases should still be followed.

29 July 2019 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Country of origin information (COI) - Darfuri | Countries: Sudan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, where a first-instance court or tribunal has found — after making a full and ex nunc examination of all the relevant elements of fact and law submitted by an applicant for international protection — that, under the criteria laid down by Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection and for the content of the protection granted, that applicant must be granted such protection on the ground that he or she relied on in support of his or her application, but after which the administrative or quasi-judicial body adopts a contrary decision without establishing that new elements have arisen that justify a new assessment of the international protection needs of the applicant, that court or tribunal must vary that decision which does not comply with its previous judgment and substitute its own decision for it as to the application for international protection, disapplying as necessary the national law that would prohibit it from proceeding in that way.

29 July 2019 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Administrative law - Effective remedy | Countries: Hungary - Russian Federation

Appellants’ emergency motion for a stay of the district court’s April 5, 2019 and July 2, 2019 orders pending appeal (Dkt. Entry No. 10) is granted in part and denied in part.

22 July 2019 | Judicial Body: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | Topic(s): Immigration Detention | Countries: United States of America

The Committee makes the following recommendations to the State party: (a) Concerning the author of the communication and her daughters: (i) Reopen their asylum case, taking into account the Committee’s views; (ii) Refrain from forcibly returning them to Jordan, where they would be exposed to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of severe forms of gender-based violence. (b) General: (i) Take all measures necessary to ensure that victims of gender-based forms of persecution who are in need of protection, regardless of their status or residence, are not returned under any circumstance to any country in which their life would be at risk or where they might be subjected to gender-based violence or to torture or ill-treatment; (ii) Ensure that the threshold for accepting asylum applications is measured not against the probability but against the reasonable likelihood that the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution or that she would be exposed to persecution upon her return; (iii) Ensure that women asylum seekers have timely information on the importance of the first interview and what constitutes relevant information in that context; (iv) Ensure that, whenever necessary, examiners use all the means at their disposal to produce and/or verify the necessary evidence in support of the application, including by seeking and gathering information from reliable governmental and non-governmental sources on human rights in the country of origin, in particular relating to the situation of women and girls, and taking all necessary measures in that regard; (v) Ensure, when interpreting all legally recognized grounds for asylum, the classification of claims for asylum on the basis of gender under the grounds of membership of a particular social group, where necessary, and consider adding sex and/or gender and other status to the list of grounds for refugee status in national asylum legislation;

15 July 2019 | Judicial Body: UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) | Legal Instrument: 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) | Topic(s): Domestic violence - Forced marriage - Gender-based persecution - Women's rights | Countries: Denmark - Jordan - Palestine, State of