Case Law

Holding: France’s failure to enforce orders by the urgent-applications judge of the Administrative Court for the provision of emergency accommodation to a number of homeless and particularly vulnerable asylum-seekers was in violation of Article 6 § 1 ECtHR.

8 December 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Reception | Countries: France

This case concerned the strict application of a waiting period for family reunification in Switzerland, aligning its case law with M.A. v Denmark (ECtHR).

24 November 2022 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Topic(s): Family reunification | Countries: Switzerland

The Swiss authorities' decision to return a Zimbabwean national to his country of origin violated Article 3 of the Convention against Torture. The right to an effective remedy contained in Article 3 requires an opportunity for an effective, independent and impartial review of the decision to expel or return when there is a plausible allegation that issues under Article 3 arise.

11 November 2022 | Judicial Body: UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) | Topic(s): Convention against Torture (CAT) - Non-refoulement | Countries: Switzerland

(1) The duty of candour which applies in judicial review proceedings obliges the parties to disclose all material facts, including those which are or appear to be adverse to his case. (2) That duty also obliges the parties to make reasonable enquiries to identify such facts, so as to ensure that the judge dealing with the application has the full picture. (3) In practice, the duty of candour obliges an applicant’s legal representatives in Age Assessment Judicial Review proceedings to: (i) Ascertain what social media and other methods of communication are used by the applicant; (ii) Consider the relevant accounts with a view to ascertaining whether they contain any material which potentially undermines the applicant’s case; and (iii) Disclose any material which might be relevant to the case, including any material adverse to the applicant. (4) The duty is a self-policing one, but the Upper Tribunal might legitimately require a ‘disclosure statement’ from an applicant’s solicitor, confirming that the applicant has disclosed to them the details of any social media accounts that they hold and that the solicitor in question has undertaken a reasonable and proportionate search of those accounts in order to ensure that all documents relevant to the issues in the case have been disclosed. (5) When the Upper Tribunal considers an application for specific disclosure, it will be a highly material consideration that the applicant’s solicitor has made such a disclosure statement. (6) In order for the Upper Tribunal to make an order for specific disclosure, it is necessary for there to have been an application for the same; such an order cannot be made as a matter of course. Instead, the test will always be whether, in the given case, disclosure appears to be necessary in order to resolve the matter fairly and justly. (7) An order for specific disclosure of material from an applicant’s social media accounts is likely to represent an interference with 2 their private life and it is necessary to consider the breadth of the disclosure required in order to decide whether a less intrusive measure might suffice.

27 October 2022 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: Afghanistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

1. The application concerns the Swedish authorities’ refusal to grant residence permits to a mother and her son, who were in Syria, on the basis of their family ties with another son/brother who had been granted subsidiary protection in Sweden. The applicants complained that the Law on temporary restrictions on the possibility of being granted a residence permit in Sweden (which had entered into force on 20 July 2016 and had remained in force until 19 July 2019) had suspended their right to family reunification in breach of Article 8 of the Convention, and that the difference in treatment, with regard to family reunification, of persons granted refugee status and of persons (such as the second applicant) who had been granted subsidiary protection status, had constituted discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8.

20 October 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Family reunification | Countries: Sweden - Syrian Arab Republic

The present case concerns numerous refusals of the Polish authorities to examine the applicants’ requests for international protection, their denied entry to Poland and return to Belarus

13 October 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Effective remedy - Entry / Exit - Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: Belarus - Poland - Russian Federation

The present case concerns numerous refusals of the Polish authorities to examine the applicants’ requests for international protection, their denied entry to Poland and return to Belarus.

13 October 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Expulsion | Countries: Poland - Russian Federation

1. The applicant complained that his extradition to China would violate Article 3 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as – if extradited and tried – he would be at risk of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment; moreover, he would be denied a fair trial. He also complained under Article 5 § 1 that his detention pending extradition was unreasonably long and, therefore, arbitrary.

6 October 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Diplomatic assurances - Extradition - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: China - Poland

This case concerned the right of a refugee to change residency between Cantons in Switzerland.

30 September 2022 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Topic(s): Residence permits / Residency | Countries: Switzerland