Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral

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

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

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

Leading case concerning family reunification and safe third country: The appellant was recognized as refugee in Italy on 16 November 2009 He went to Switzerland for family reunification. The fact that a person has already been granted protection as a refugee and asylum in another Dublin State constitutes a "special circumstance" within the meaning of Art. 51 para. 1 of the Swiss Asylum Law which precludes the granting of family asylum.

25 September 2019 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Family reunification - Refugee / Asylum law - Safe third country | Countries: Eritrea - Switzerland

The FAC suspended the transfer of a Syrian refugee, who allegedly suffered ill-treatment by Croatian authorities, to Croatia under the Dublin III Regulation.

12 July 2019 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Asylum-seekers - Expulsion - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Switzerland - Syrian Arab Republic

Question about granting second asylum to a Chinese national of Tibetan ethnicity born in India. Second asylum, within the meaning of Art. 50 LAsi, does not presuppose recognition as a refugee in a first state of asylum that is a signatory to the Refugee Convention.

4 July 2019 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Family reunification - Freedom of movement - Passports - Refugee / Asylum law - Visas | Countries: China - Switzerland

The Court recalls that the exemption clause for asylum is based on restrictive conditions. Under the Asylum Act (AsylA) and subject to the SEM’s approval, a residence permit may be granted in accordance with the applicable provisions on asylum to any person who has stayed in Switzerland for at least five years from the date the asylum application was submitted, whose place of residence has always been known to the authorities and for whom it is a case of serious hardship due to a high level of integration. The appellant fulfils the first two conditions. With respect to the third condition, the Court underlines, in particular, the misuse of procedures for the purpose of artificially extending the appellant’s stay. It reached the conclusion that the person’s track record in Switzerland to date was not of a nature that justified the granting of a residence permit.

26 September 2018 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Rejected asylum-seekers - Residence permits / Residency | Countries: Russian Federation - Switzerland

This decision was about the conditions under which a recognized refugee can be denied asylum, according to article 53 (b) of the Swiss law on Asylum. The case concerns a Turkish national of Kurdish ethnicity suspected to support the armed group PKK.

5 September 2018 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): National security / Public order - Terrorism | Countries: Switzerland - Türkiye

The methods of medical age assessment that are used in Switzerland are considered as indications, which are weighted differently depending on their results, to determine whether a person has reached majority (consid. 4.2.2). Moroever, the usual rules for the assessment of evidence must be observed. Medical evidence is a strong indication of a person’s age (consid. 4.2.2).

8 August 2018 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: Switzerland

This case harmonized Switzerland's approach to family reunification with the the decision of the European Court of Human Right (ECtHR) in Hadzhieva v. Bulgaria from February 1 2018, n° 45285/12. The right to family reunification cannot expire if it existed, according to national or international law, at the time when the application was submitted.

25 July 2018 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Family reunification | Countries: Switzerland