The applicant, a national of Morocco, was found and arrested at the Austrian border with Slovenia on 28 September 2020 ina group with six other people. He used English and French words for 'asylum' to indicate his need for international protection but no procedure was initiated to examine his application. He was also undressed and searched. He was then returned to Slovenia and from there to Croatia and then to Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The applicant complained about the lack of access to asylum procedures and the violation of his privacy due to the search to which he was subjected.
The Regional Administrative Court of Styria held that it assumes that the applicant, including other persons of the intercepted group, used the word ‘asylum’ several times and concluded that pushbacks were sometimes applied methodically in Austria. It also noted that the deportation by Slovenian police to Croatia and to Bosnia and Herzegovina without further questioning amounted to chain refoulement.
The Finnish Immigration Service appealed against an administrative court decision to lift the entry ban concerning an Iraqi national that was considered by the FIS a dander to the public order and security, and for whom the FIS decided that voluntary return cannot be applied in light of the criminal offences committed by the applicant.
The Supreme Administrative Court held that a case-by-case analysis shall be conducted when considering whether a person constitutes a danger to public order and security and for this purpose the court must assess if the threat to the fundamental interests of society is real, immediate, and sufficiently serious. A person suspected for having committed a criminal offence or who was convicted for an act, can not be regarded as a danger to public security unless other circumstances are balanced, such as the nature and gravity of the act alongside with the time elapsed since the act. A decision must indicate explanations on the suspected crime and how it relates to the general assessment.
The FIS made the decision to impose an entry ban on the applicant when the later was suspected of aggravated assault committed in April 2018, based on the act that assault offences affect the life and health of others and concluded that the applicant endangered public order and security. The Administrative Court overturned the decision and lifted the entry ban based on the fact that the applicant was convicted for assault.
The Supreme administrative Court found that the FIS, in its initial decision did not specify the report on the suspected offence on which it based the assessment of the endangerment of the public order and security.
The Supreme Administrative Court mentioned that the assessment shall take into consideration the person’s behaviour in the future, thus the analysis of the risk is not limited to the time when the matter was decided by the FIS but new facts raised after the FIS and the administrative decisions have to be examined. Such new facts may have a significant impact by eliminating or decisively reducing the risk to public order and security posed by a person or it can increase the risk, and consequently impacting the assessment made by the FIS.
In its appeal, the FIS presented a new report that the applicant he is suspected of extortion and stalking, as well as unlawful threat and assault. The Supreme Administrative Court took into account the new report as part of the overall assessment of the danger to public order and security, even though the new facts had come to light after the decision of the Finnish Immigration Service. The fact that the applicant was convicted for assault and is suspected of other offenses was considered by the Supreme Administrative Court as proofs that the applicant poses a danger and a threat to public security and order, annulled the administrative court decision and imposed an entry ban as provided by the initial FIS decision.
The Supreme Administrative Court annulled the Administrative Court's decision on the lifting of the entry ban and the imposition of a voluntary return period and imposed an entry ban imposed by the Finnish Immigration Service.
The request for preliminary ruling was lodged by the Federal Administrative Court of Germany, in the context of a dispute between SE, an Afghan national, and the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, which refused to grant him refugee or subsidiary protection under family reunification with his son, who was a beneficiary of subsidiary protection. It concerned the recast Qualification Directive, Article 2 (j). The referring court asked the CJEU to determine the relevant date for assessing whether the beneficiary of international protection is a minor.
The CJEU rejected the suggestion of the German Government that the date on which the competent authority of the Member State concerned decides on the asylum application submitted by the parent should be retained as the relevant date, given that in this case national authorities and courts would not be encouraged to prioritise the requests presented by the parents of minors thus not taking into account the vulnerability of the minors and could jeopardize the right to family life. In this contect, the CJEU held that the relevant date for assessing whether the beneficiary of international protection is a “minor”, in order to rule on the asylum application lodged by his parent, is the date on which the parent submitted the request. The court held that such an interpretation is consistent with the purposes of the recast Qualification Directive and with the fundamental rights. The court further noted that, where a distinction is made, in the national system, between an informal request and the submission of a request, in the event that the asylum seeker informally submitted his application while his child was still a minor, such an applicant must, in principle, be considered as being at that date a member of the family of the beneficiary of subsidiary protection.