Last Updated: Tuesday, 23 May 2023, 12:44 GMT

Case Law

Case Law includes national and international jurisprudential decisions. Administrative bodies and tribunals are included.
Selected filters: Switzerland
Filter:
Showing 21-30 of 225 results
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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | Topic(s): Return conditions - Security situation | Countries: Somalia - Switzerland

Flor Agustina Calfunao Paillalef c. Suisse

Risque de torture ou de peines ou traitements cruels, inhumains ou dégradants en cas d’expulsion (non-refoulement)

2 January 2020 | Judicial Body: UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) | Topic(s): Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Indigenous persons - Minorities - Non-refoulement | Countries: Chile - Switzerland

A.A. v. Switzerland

The case concerned the removal from Switzerland to Afghanistan of an Afghan national of Hazara ethnicity who was a Muslim convert to Christianity. The European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there would be: a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights in the event of the applicant’s return to Afghanistan.

5 November 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Refugee / Asylum law - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) | Countries: Afghanistan - Switzerland

Switzerland: Judgement FAC E-4639_2017 of 25 September 2019[1530]

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 | Topic(s): Family reunification - Refugee / Asylum law - Safe third country | Countries: Eritrea - Switzerland

Switzerland: Judgement FAC E-3078_2019 of 12 July 2019[1529]

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 | Topic(s): Asylum-seekers - Expulsion - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Switzerland - Syrian Arab Republic

Switzerland: Judgement FAC D629_2017 of 4 Jul. 2019[1528]

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 | Topic(s): Family reunification - Freedom of movement - Passports - Refugee / Asylum law - Visas | Countries: China - Switzerland

A.H c. Suisse

6 December 2018 | Judicial Body: UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) | Legal Instrument: 1984 Convention against Torture (CAT) | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: Ethiopia - Italy - Switzerland

Search Refworld