Last Updated: Friday, 05 November 2021, 15:03 GMT

Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral

German name: Bundesverwaltungsgericht. Italian name: Tribunale amministrativo federale. Website: www.bvger.ch/
Filter:
Showing 1-10 of 59 results
Switzerland: Judgement FAC E-7092_2017 of 25 January 2021[1542]

The TAF decided in a principle judgment that the right to family life should be taken into account in a Dublin procedure, even if the family member in Switzerland does not have a secure right of residence.

25 January 2021 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Family reunification - Refugee / Asylum law - Residence permits / Residency | Countries: Switzerland - Syrian Arab Republic

Switzerland: Judgement FAC E-3822_2019 of 28 oct. 2020[1532]

The FAC has ruled that the SEM has to apply the principle of proportionality, which generally applies to revocation of residence permits, in cases where temporary admission is withdrawn. The FAC found that the temporary admission of the appellant, an Eritrea national, should be maintained.

28 October 2020 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Asylum-seekers - Residence permits / Residency | Countries: Eritrea - Switzerland

Arrêt E-1813/2019 du 1er juillet 2020

In a landmark judgment, the Federal Administrative Court acknowledged the existence of a new specific circumstance that goes against the granting of family asylum. In addition, it considered that the result of the assessment of evidence made in the original, already concluded, asylum procedure cannot be simply transposed to the subsequent family asylum procedure. The right to be heard must be granted again and the results assessed separately.

1 July 2020 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Right to family life - Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness | Countries: China - Switzerland

Switzerland: Judgement FAC E-1813_2019 of 1 July 2020[1539]

This decision was about the granting of family asylum to a woman of Tibetan ethnicity. It represent a landmark judgment of the FAC acknowledging the existence of a new specific circumstance that goes against the granting of family asylum. The FAC overrules the decision of the SEM to refuse family asylum and refers the matter back to the SEM for further investigation and reassessment.

1 July 2020 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Asylum-seekers - Family reunification - Refugee / Asylum law - Tibetan | Countries: China - Switzerland

Urteil vom 9. Juni 2020

It finds that, although asylum-seekers are not entitled to have their asylum application processed in one of the two types of procedures, an infringement of the right to an effective appeal within the meaning of Article 29a of the Swiss Federal Constitution and Article 13 in relation to Article 3 ECHR may arise if, despite the complexity of the matter, a decision is made, incorrectly, not to opt for an extended procedure and therefore the short time limit for appeal applies instead of the standard one.

9 June 2020 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Appeal / Right to appeal - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness

Switzerland: Judgement FAC E-6713_2019 of 9 June 2020[1538]

The judgment deals with the question of when asylum applications must be referred to the extended procedure due to their complexity instead of being decided under the accelerated procedure.

9 June 2020 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Asylum-seekers - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Iran, Islamic Republic of - Switzerland

Switzerland: Judgement FAC D-2186_2020 of 4 May 2020[1537]

The legal representative of the asylum seeker from Afghanistan refused to participate in the « Dublin » hearing due to Covid-19. The hearing had been conducted without any legal representative and the SEM decided on the asylum seeker’s transfer to Germany. The FAC concludes that the absence of a legal representative was due to justifiable good cause. Thus, the hearing has no effect.

4 May 2020 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): COVID-19 - Legal representation / Legal aid - Refugee / Asylum law | Countries: Afghanistan - Switzerland

Switzerland: Judgement FAC F-1389_2019 of 20 April 2020[1536]

This decision was about an asylum seeker who was allocated to a specific centre for a period of 14 days on account of his disruptive behaviour at the federal centre for asylum seekers where he was residing. He complained about this allocation and the arrangements it entailed. This restriction was justified by the disruptive behaviour of the person in question and proportionate. The appellant had a certain degree of freedom of movement during his allocation to the specific centre and could leave it outside of curfew hours.

20 April 2020 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Document type: Case Law | Countries: Switzerland

Arrêt F-7195/2018 du 11 février 2020

On 11 February 2020, the Swiss Federal Administrative Tribunal (TAF) ruled in case F-7195/2018 concerning the Dublin transfer of an asylum seeker to Bulgaria that there are no systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for applicants in Bulgaria, and that there is no reason for a complete suspension of Dublin transfers to Bulgaria. The court ruled that the Swiss asylum authority SEM should assess on a case-to-case basis whether a Dublin transfer must be suspended. This examination could include obtaining concrete and prior guarantees from the Bulgarian authorities. A transfer is only possible if the possibility that the asylum-seeker concerned would be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment on his return to Bulgaria is excluded. In this particular case, the appeal against the transfer decision was made by the applicant, arguing that she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder which could not be treated adequately in Bulgaria, that she risked not being able to access the regular reception services due to the fact that her asylum application had already been rejected by the Bulgarian authorities, that she even risked being detained and subjected to inhuman conditions and that she finally risked being returned to her country of origin contrary to the principle of non-refoulement. Taking her particular circumstances into account, the TAF quashed the transfer decision and upheld the appeal, ruling that even though there are no systemic deficiencies in the asylum system in Bulgaria, the transfer decision should be based on a detailed analysis of all relevant circumstances of the asylum seeker.

11 February 2020 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) - Reception - Rejected asylum-seekers | Countries: Bulgaria - Sri Lanka - Switzerland

Switzerland: Judgement FAC E6310_2017 of 15 January 2020[1534]

Removal to Puntland, Somalia, is reasonable, thus the enforcement of removal is deemed reasonable in favorable circumstances.

15 January 2020 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Return conditions - Security situation | Countries: Somalia - Switzerland

Search Refworld