31/05/2023
DE: The regional administrative court annulled Dublin transfer to Hungary on basis that the applicants, a family of four, would have difficulties in accessing the asylum procedure and to secure a minimum livelihood
Read More...
|
31/05/2023
BG: The Supreme Administrative Court refused a request for international protection lodged by a Russian national who fled conscription for the war in Ukraine.
Read More...
|
30/05/2023
DE: The Regional Administrative Court of Cologne annulled a Dublin transfer to Italy, noting that there were far-reaching systemic deficiencies in Italy’s asylum system.
Read More...
|
30/05/2023
IT: The Tribunal of Lecce annulled a Dublin transfer to Malta considering that there was a risk of inhuman treatment for the applicant due to inadequate conditions of reception in Malta.
Read More...
|
30/05/2023
NL: The Court of the Hague seated in Arnhem held that the State Secretary must investigate further the situation in Bulgaria prior to concluding that a Dublin transfer can take place, considering indications that pushbacks also take place after re-admission to Bulgaria.
Read More...
|
30/05/2023
DE: The regional administrative court of Karlsruhe suspended a Dublin transfer to Lithuania due to potential risk of deprivation of freedom of movement, equating to detention within the meaning of Article 8 of the recast APD
Read More...
|
30/05/2023
AT: The Federal Administrative Court granted refugee status to a Syrian applicant on grounds of risk of persecution based on risk of military conscription upon return
The applicant, a Syrian national, Muslim and Arab, has claimed asylum in Austria on grounds that he was drafted for military service as a reservist and he is afraid returning to his country and his village because the Kurdish party YPG attacked his village and killed many people, including his cousin and brother. The applicant provided a military book, a copy of an extract from the family book and marriage certificate. He explained that he has a wife in Lebanon, he went to school in Syria for 9 years, worked for 13 years as a constructor in Syria, after that he did military service and worked as a farmer. He then travelled legally to Lebanon where he worked as a construction worker then he illegally entered Syria and stayed in transit for 7 days prior to travelling to Turkey and Austria. He claimed as reason to fleeing to Lebanon and fear of return to Syria that he fears being recruited either by the Syrian government or the Kurds and he would be sent to war.
The BFA rejected his claim for asylum but granted him subsidiary protection status. The BFA justified its negative decision on asylum on the fact that it considered no significant risk for the applicant for being conscripted by the Kurdish in Syria, and that his home region can be reached via one of the few crossing points which are not controlled by the Syrian government.
The applicant B.F. appealed against the negative decision and claimed a risk of being drafted to military service in Syria.
The Federal Administrative Court made a detailed examination of the case and consulted updated country of origin information, including EUAA COI Country Guidance Syria of February 2023 and COI report: Syria – Security situation, July 2021, on the security situation and military service. A hearing was also organised before the court. It its assessment, the court found the statements of the applicant as credible and noted that the applicant was able to clarify ambiguities during the oral hearing. The court found the statements credible with regard to the reason of having fled his country, and noted that although there is no danger of forcibly recruitment to do reserve service of being punished for refusing military service, as revealed by country reports, however, if the applicant would return to Syria, there is a real risk that he will be drafted into military service for the Syrian army or punished for refusing it. The court noted that the only possible return to Syria is via the Damascus airport which is controlled by the Syrian government. According to the local law in Syria, man between 18 and 42 years old are requested to perform two years of military service. According to Legislative Decree no. 30 of 2007 art. 4 lit b, this applies from January 1 of the year in which the age of 18 is reached until the age of 42 is passed and the applicant falls within the age range. According to reports and studies by various human rights organisations, the risk of forced recruitment is one of the main obstacles to return for numerous refugees and there is no possibility for legal conscientious objection in Syria or a civilian alternative service. The court concluded that there is no regular or safer way to avoid military service in Syria. If conscript would attempt to evade military service by fleeing to other parts of the country not under regime control, they would have to pass through numerous military and paramilitary checkpoints, with the risk of forcible conscription, either by the Syrian armed forces, intelligence services or pro-regime militias. Men of military age are forbidden to leave the country and the applicant was listed as a reservist on the website of the Syrian Defense Ministry. The court mentioned that according to the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) COI report, all conscripts can potentially be sent to the front and thus the applicant would be forced to carry out military actions contrary to international law. With regard to conscription to the Kurdish militia, the court found that the applicant passed over the age limit for being recruited for them (conscription is between 18-24 years old). The court considered it was not possible to determine with a sufficient degree of probability that the applicant would be threatened with direct and personal persecution by the Kurds in his town village.
The court ruled, based on COI and personal situation of the applicant that he has a well-founded fear of persecution and that he has only one reasonable and legal entry to his country via the airport in Damascus, and that this entry puts the applicant at risk of being caught by the Syrian army and persecuted. The region of origin of the applicant cannot be reached without risks endangering physical safety due to reasons related to grounds for asylum.
The Federal Administrative Court overturned the negative decision and granted the applicant refugee status.
Read More...
|
26/05/2023
DK: The Refugee Appeals Board referred two cases back to the Immigration Service for further examination of the consequences of Italy having introduced a state of emergency in December 2022 suspending incoming Dublin transfers for an indefinite period of time due to high pressure on its borders and insufficient reception facilities.
Read More...
|
26/05/2023
DK: The Refugee Appeals Board allowed the Dublin transfer of a family to Poland under the condition of guarantees being provided regarding the conditions there.
In May 2023, the Refugee Appeals Board pronounced a decision concerning the Dublin transfer of a family with a minor child to Poland on the basis of the Dublin III Regulation.
In this case, the complainants argued that the application should be examined in Denmark, and not in Poland, due to the risk of detention and considering that they are a family with minor children and thus vulnerable to inadequate detention conditions in Poland.
The Refugee Appeals Board confirmed that Poland was responsible for the examination of the application, on the basis of Article 12(2) of the Dublin III Regulation, considering that the complainants had been issued visas in Poland with a validity of 365 days and Poland had agreed to take charge of the applicants.
The Refugee Board considered that there was no reason to believe that the conditions at the general reception centres in Poland could be considered to be affected by significant deficiencies. It made reference to AIDA’s reports which stated that overcrowding did not appear to be an issue and although some specific aspects could be improved (provision of more efficient inclusion programmes and better access to medical and psychological services), reception conditions in Poland appeared to have improved in recent years and did not represent a major cause for concern in the country. The Board added that Polish NGOs reported on difficulties in finding private accommodation as rents have increased and the financial allowances were insufficient.
However, the Board noted several sources which expressed concerns about the inadequate conditions for children and the fact that none of the detention centres was an appropriate place for children, as none of them guarantees the children’s right to education, sometimes lack common social rooms for foreigners, containers do not have sanitary facilities or they are located several hundred meters away, which due to weather conditions may endanger their health. It was also noted that two families are placed in one container which did not respect their right to privacy.
The Board also cited the Association for Legal Intervention which noted that courts automatically approved most legal motions of the border guards, resulting in many vulnerable persons, including families with children, being placed in guarded centers. According to the association, the courts also automatically extended detention beyond the initial three months, which in practice meant many persons stayed in guarded detention centers for extended periods of time. Furthermore, the association observed that children placed in guarded centers did not have access to public education and could participate only in limited educational activities organised on site.
The Refugee Appeals Board concluded that there were no systemic deficiencies that would hamper all Dublin transfers to Poland but highlighted that prior to the transfer of the persons in question, a guarantee must obtained from the Polish authorities that the complainants will have access to the asylum procedure and reception and accommodation conditions that are in accordance with the country's EU law and other international obligations.
Read More...
|
26/05/2023
DK: The Refugee Appeals Board overturned three decisions in which it had allowed Dublin transfers to Belgium, after the Belgian authorities refused to provide guarantees for adequate living conditions, specifically accommodation, for Dublin transferees, due to pressure on the reception system.
Read More...
|
 | Loading… |
     |