Asylum-migration nexus

This case concerned the sinking on 20 January 2014 of a fishing boat transporting 27 foreign nationals in the Aegean Sea, off the island of Farmakonisi, resulting in the death of 11 people, including relatives of the applicants. The Court found violations of Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).

7 July 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Rescue at sea / Interception at sea | Countries: Afghanistan - Greece - Palestine, State of - Syrian Arab Republic

5 July 2022 | Publisher: Council of Europe | Document type: Fact Finding Reports

5 July 2022 | Publisher: Council of Europe | Document type: Fact Finding Reports

30 June 2022 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Memoranda of Understanding

10 June 2022 | Publisher: United States President | Document type: Resolutions/Recommendations/Declarations

March 2022 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports

28 July 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Comments on National Legislation

On those grounds, the Court (Fourth Chamber) hereby rules: Article 33(2)(d) 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 2(q) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which provides for the possibility of rejecting as inadmissible an application for international protection, within the meaning of Article 2(b) of that directive, made to that Member State by a third-country national or a stateless person whose previous application seeking the grant of refugee status, made to a third State implementing Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, in accordance with the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State or in Iceland or Norway – Declarations, had been rejected by that third State.

20 May 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Access to procedures - Secondary movement | Countries: Germany - Iran, Islamic Republic of

March 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country/Situation Specific Position Papers

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 | Document type: Case Law | 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