Administration of justice / Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness

September 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Comments on National Legislation

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

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

Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complained that if removed to Sudan he would be at risk of forced recruitment, persecution because he belonged to a non-Arab ethnic group from Darfur, and more generally, on account of the humanitarian situation in Sudan as a result of the conflict in Darfur. No violation of Article 3 – in the event of the applicant’s removal to Sudan No violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 3

2 June 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Effective remedy - Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Racial / Ethnic persecution - Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness | Countries: Netherlands - Sudan

9 April 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: General Comments/Recommendations

In January 2015, the applicant’s house was destroyed by ordnances. A commission examined the level of destruction and recognized it as inevitable. The applicant referred to the court claiming a compensation according to the Civil Protection Code, the Law on combatting terrorism and the Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The requested amount of compensation was 1 156 356,50 UAH. The applicant’s claim was rejected in the lower instance courts. The applicant appealed the decisions of the lower-instance courts and reached the Supreme Court. The latter decided that the applicant is entitled to compensation due to the state’s failure to elaborate the relevant compensation mechanism as a protection measure of the property right. Ukraine is now obliged to compensate for the damaged housing under Protocol 1 to the ECHR. There is no clear mechanism on the payment of compensations though. Therefore, the Court assigned 100,000 UAH of compensation from the State Budget of Ukraine, which is much lower than an applicant requested. However, the decision is final and cannot be disputed in Ukraine.

25 March 2020 | Judicial Body: Ukraine: Supreme Court | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness - Ukrainians | Countries: Ukraine

6 December 2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae

15 October 2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae

This case presents us with a simple question: do non-citizens subject to expedited removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1228 have a statutory right to counsel in reasonable fear proceedings before immigration judges? The answer, based on the plain language of § 1228, is yes.

20 August 2019 | Judicial Body: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Legal representation / Legal aid - Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness - Well-founded fear of persecution | Countries: Mexico - United States of America

The determination of the First-tier Tribunal to dismiss the claimant’s appeal against the refusal of her asylum claim was reached by a process which was procedurally unfair as it did not give her sufficient opportunity to obtain evidence from Uganda to support her claim. The determination will be quashed and the defendant will be ordered to use his best endeavours to facilitate the return of the claimant to the United Kingdom to enable her to continue with her appeal. The claimant was lawfully detained from 21 July 2013 to 6 August 2013 and from 10 September 2013 until her removal to Uganda on 12 December 2013. The claimant was unlawfully detained from (and including) 6 August 2013 up to 10 September 2013.

24 June 2019 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) - Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness | Countries: Uganda - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland