Case Law

31 January 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Asylum policy - Expulsion | Countries: Georgia - Russian Federation

guidance on the interpretation of the provisions of Directive 2013/33/EU (2) which provide guarantees for applicants for international protection placed in administrative detention pursuant to a decision of the competent national authorities. The referring court seeks to ascertain whether that directive, read in conjunction with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, (3) in particular the rights to liberty and security and to an effective remedy enshrined therein, precludes national rules which provide that proceedings challenging a detention decision must be discontinued if the person concerned is released.

31 January 2019 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Effective remedy | Countries: Czech Republic

Une autorité nationale compétente peut-elle se fonder sur les dispositions prévues à l’article 19 de la directive 2011/95/UE (2) afin de procéder à la révocation du statut conféré par la protection subsidiaire à un apatride, et ce en raison d’une appréciation erronée des besoins de protection internationale dont elle est seule responsable ?

24 January 2019 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Cessation clauses - Complementary forms of protection - Exclusion clauses - Statelessness | Countries: Algeria - Austria

Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Uzbekistan) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)

22 January 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 - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: Russian Federation - Tajikistan - Uzbekistan

At issue are the reach of the Refugees Act and of the Immigration Act as well as the interplay between these two statutes; the effect of delay on entitlement to apply for refugee status; the operation of the exclusionary provisions of the Refugees Act, particularly section 4(1)(b); and whether this section applies only to crimes committed outside South Africa. Also at issue is the fidelity of the Supreme Court of Appeal to its own judgments and whether in this case commitment to precedent (stare decisis) was breached.

20 December 2018 | Judicial Body: South Africa: Constitutional Court | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Illegal immigrants / Undocumented migrants - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Serious non-political crime | Countries: Rwanda - South Africa

“whether a failed asylum seeker of Kurdish ethnicity will be at risk of persecution on return”

14 December 2018 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Country of origin information (COI) - Kurd - Returnees | Countries: Iran, Islamic Republic of - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The applicant is an Afghan national and member of the ethnic group of Hazaras who was born and raised in Iran. He lodged an application for international protection in Austria in July 2015 which was rejected in first instance in September 2017.The Federal Administrative Court dismissed his appeal on 03/09/2018, arguing that even though the applicant cannot return to Sar-e Pol (where his family was originally from), there was an IFA available in Kabul or Mazar-e Sharif. It elaborated that the applicant had already gathered professional experience, had grown up in an Afghan family and was native speaker of one of the official languages and concluded that the applicant was familiar with the cultural circumstances in Afghanistan. The Austrian Supreme Administrative Court annulled this decision. It stated that the Federal Administrative Court's conclusion that the applicant was familiar with the cultural circumstances in Afghanistan was not evidence-based and emphasized that that the applicant had explicitly contested this. Furthermore the Supreme Administrative Court criticized that the Federal Administrative Court did not take into account and analyse the UNHCR-Afghanistan guidelines. A respective obligation derives from the respective Austrian case law as well as from European Union Law. The Court emphasized that according to UNHCR there was in general no IFA available in Kabul and that the availability of an IFA in other cities was questionable and needed to be assessed in a thorough manner on a case-to-case basis.

13 December 2018 | Judicial Body: Austria: Supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) | Topic(s): Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria - Iran, Islamic Republic of

whether the applicants had actually submitted asylum applications at the border - the Court was satisfied that the applicants had submitted asylum applications, either orally or in writing, at the Lithuanian border on 16 April, 11 May and 22 May 2017. However, border guards had not accepted those applications and had not forwarded them to a competent authority for examination and status determination, as required by domestic law. Furthermore, border guards’ reports to their senior officers had not made any mention of the applicants’ wish to seek asylum on any of the three occasions – there were no references to the writing of “azul” on the decisions, nor to the written asylum application. There was also no indication either in those reports or in any other documents submitted to the Court that the border guards had attempted to clarify what was the reason – if not seeking asylum – for the applicants’ presence at the border without valid travel documents. Nor did it appear that there had been any assessment at all of whether it had been safe to return the applicants – a family with five very young children – to Belarus, which was not a Contracting Party to the European Convention on Human Rights and, according to publicly available information, could not be assumed to be a safe third country for Chechen asylum-seekers. As a result, the applicants had been returned to Belarus without there being any assessment of their asylum claims. It was therefore evident that measures which the Government had claimed constituted adequate safeguards against the arbitrary removal of asylum-seekers – such as the supervision of border guards by superior officers or the monitoring of borders by non-governmental organisations – had not been effective in the applicants’ case. Conclusion: violation (four votes to three).

11 December 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Rejection at border | Countries: Lithuania - Russian Federation