Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Compilation of jurisprudence
Vulnerability in the context of applications
for international protection
Produced by IARMJ-Europe under contract to EASO
2021
EASO Professional Development Seriesfor members of courts and tribunals
EASO professional development materials have been created in cooperation with members of courts and tribunals on the following topics
bull Introduction to the Common European Asylum System for courts and tribunalsbull Qualification for international protection (Directive 201195EU)bull Asylum procedures and the principle of non-refoulementbull Evidence and credibility assessment in the context of the Common European Asylum
Systembull Article 15(c) qualification directive (Directive 201195EU)bull Exclusion Articles 12 and 17 Qualification Directive (201195EU)bull Ending international protection Articles 11 14 16 and 19 Qualification Directive
(Directive 201195EU)bull Detention of applicants for international protection in the context of the Common
European Asylum Systembull Country of origin informationbull Reception of applicants for international protection (Reception Conditions Directive
201333EU)bull Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
The professional development series comprises judicial analyses judicial trainers guidance notes and compilations of jurisprudence for each topic covered apart from country of origin information which comprises a judicial practical guide accompanied by a compilation of jurisprudence All materials are developed in English For more information on publications including on the availability of different language versions please visit wwweasoeuropaeucourts-and-tribunals
Compilation of jurisprudence
Vulnerability in the context of applications
for international protection
Produced by IARMJ-Europe under contract to EASO
2021
EASO Professional Development Series for members of courts and tribunals
copy European Asylum Support Office 2021Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledgedFor any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the copyright of EASO permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders
Print ISBN 978-92-9476-631-1 doi102847903590 BZ-03-19-225-EN-C
PDF ISBN 978-92-9476-630-4 doi10284763941 BZ-03-19-225-EN-N
Manuscript completed in August 2020
Neither the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) nor any person acting on behalf of EASO is responsible for the use that might be made of the following information
Luxembourg Publications Office of the European Union 2021
Cover illustration baldyrgan copy Shutterstock
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 3
European Asylum Support OfficeEASO is an agency of the European Union that plays a key role in the concrete development of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) It was established with the aim of enhancing practical cooperation on asylum matters and helping Member States fulfil their European and international obligations to give protection to people in need
Article 6 of the EASO founding Regulation (1) (hereinafter the Regulation) specifies that the Agency shall establish and develop training available to members of courts and tribunals in the Member States For this purpose EASO shall take advantage of the expertise of academic institutions and other relevant organisations and take into account the Unionrsquos existing cooperation in the field with full respect to the independence of national courts and tribunals
International Association of Refugee and Migration JudgesThe International Association of Refugee and Migration Judges (IARMJ) (2) is a transnational non-profit association that seeks to foster recognition that protection from persecution on account of race religion nationality membership in a particular social group or political opinion is an individual right established under international law and that the determination of refugee status and its cessation should be subject to the rule of law Since the foundation of the association in 1997 it has been heavily involved in the training of judges around the world dealing with asylum cases The European Chapter of the IARMJ (IARMJ-Europe) is the regional representative body for judges within Europe One of the Chapterrsquos specific objectives under its Constitution is lsquoto enhance knowledge and skills and to exchange views and experiences of judges on all matters concerning the application and functioning of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS)rsquo
ContributorsThis compilation of jurisprudence has been developed by a process with two components an Editorial team (ET) of judges and tribunal members with overall responsibility for the final product and two researchers responsible for drafting
In order to ensure the integrity of the principle of judicial independence and that the EASO Professional development series for members of courts and tribunals is developed and delivered under judicial guidance an ET composed of serving judges and tribunal members with extensive experience and expertise in the field of asylum law was selected under the auspices of a Joint monitoring group (JMG) The JMG is composed of representatives of the contracting parties EASO and IARMJ-Europe The ET reviewed drafts gave detailed instructions to the drafting team drafted amendments and was the final decision-making body as to the scope structure content and design of the work The work of the ET was undertaken through regular electronictelephonic communication
Editorial team of judges and tribunal membersThe judges and tribunal members of the ET for this compilation of jurisprudence were Mona Aldestam (Sweden Co-Chair) Michael Hoppe (Germany Co-Chair) Johan Berg (Norway) Katelijne Declerck (Belgium) Nadine Finch (UK) Florence Malvasio (France) Melanie Plimmer (UK) and Boštjan Zalar (Slovenia) The ET was supported and assisted in its task by Project Coordination Manager Clara Odofin
(1) Regulation(EU)No4392010oftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilof19 May2010establishingaEuropeanAsylumSupportOffice [2010] OJ L 13211
(2) Formerly known as the International Association of Refugee Law Judges (IARLJ)
4 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
DraftersClaire Thomas (consultant) was the primary drafter along with Frances Nicholson (consultant) who provided editorial support
AcknowledgementsComments on the draft were received from Lars Bay Larsen a judge and Yann Laurans a legal secretary both of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and from the judge Jolien Schukking and the lawyers Elise Russcher and Agnes van Steijn of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in their personal capacities
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) also expressed its views on the draft text
Comments were also received from the following EASO Court and Tribunal Network members and the EASO Consultative Forum European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights Anders Bengtsson (legal expert Administrative Court in Gothenburg Sweden) Volker Ellenberger (President of the Higher Administrative Court of Baden-Wuumlrttemberg Germany) Jonas Saumlfwenberg (legal expert Administrative Court in Gothenburg Sweden) and Hugo Storey (Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) UK)
All these comments were taken into consideration by the ET in finalising the text for publication The members of the ET and EASO are grateful to all those who have made comments which have been very helpful in finalising this Compilation
This compilation of jurisprudence will be updated as necessary by EASO in accordance with the methodology for the EASO Professional development series for members of courts and tribunals
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 5
Compilation of jurisprudence ndash explanatory noteThe purpose of this Compilation of Jurisprudence is to be an accompanying resource to the Judicial analysis and to provide courts and tribunals in Member States with a helpful aid when hearing appeals or conducting reviews of decisions on applications concerning vulnerability
The cases in this Compilation are confined to those which have been named within the main body of text of the Judicial analysis Included in this Compilation is jurisprudence from
mdash European courts that is the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human rights (ECtHR)
mdash United Nations that is the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) the Committee Against Torture (CAT) and the Human Rights Committee (HRC)
Within these sections cases are listed in date order from the oldest to the most recent
All cases cited or otherwise mentioned in the footnotes of the Judicial analysis included all National cases can be found in Appendix B Primary Sources of the Judicial Analysis Further information on all cases can be found through the hyperlinks provided or via the list of websites provided at the end of this Compilation
6 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
t of J
ustic
e of
the
Euro
pean
Uni
on (C
JEU
)
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
(Gra
nd
Cham
ber
[GC]
)
Elga
faji
v St
aats
secr
etar
is v
an
Just
itie
C-46
507
EUC
200
994
170
220
09
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
15(
c) o
f Co
uncilD
irective20
0483EC
of2
9 Ap
ril200
4on
minim
umstan
dardsforth
equ
alificatio
nan
dstatusof
third
cou
ntry
nat
iona
ls or
stat
eles
s per
sons
as r
efug
ees o
r as p
erso
ns w
ho o
ther
wise
nee
d in
tern
atio
nal
prot
ectio
n an
d th
e co
nten
t of t
he p
rote
ctio
n gr
ante
d in
con
junc
tion
with
Art
icle
2(e
) of t
hat d
irect
ive
Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3EC
ndash M
inim
um st
anda
rds f
or d
eter
min
ing
who
qua
lifie
s for
refu
gee
stat
us o
r for
su
bsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
stat
us ndash
Per
son
elig
ible
for s
ubsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
ndash Ar
ticle
2(e
) ndash R
eal r
isk o
f suf
ferin
g se
rious
har
m ndash
Art
icle
15(
c) ndash
Ser
ious
and
indi
vidu
al th
reat
to a
civ
ilian
rsquos lif
e or
per
son
by re
ason
of
indi
scrim
inat
e vi
olen
ce in
situ
atio
ns o
f arm
ed c
onfli
ct
Para
s 3
8-39
lsquo38
The
exc
eptio
nal n
atur
e of
that
situ
atio
n is
also
con
firm
ed b
y th
e fa
ct th
at th
e re
leva
nt p
rote
ctio
n is
subs
idia
ry a
nd b
y th
e br
oad
logi
c of
Art
icle
15
of th
e Di
rect
ive
as t
he h
arm
def
ined
in p
arag
raph
s (a
) and
(b) o
f tha
t art
icle
requ
ires a
cle
ar d
egre
e of
indi
vidu
alisa
tion
Whi
le it
is a
dmitt
edly
true
that
co
llect
ive
fact
ors p
lay
a sig
nific
ant r
ole
in th
e ap
plic
atio
n of
Art
icle
15(
c) o
f the
Dire
ctiv
e in
that
the
pers
on c
once
rned
bel
ongs
lik
e ot
her p
eopl
e to
a c
ircle
of p
oten
tial v
ictim
s of i
ndisc
rimin
ate
viol
ence
in
situa
tions
of i
nter
natio
nal o
r int
erna
l arm
ed c
onfli
ct i
t is n
ever
thel
ess t
he c
ase
that
that
pro
visio
n m
ust
be su
bjec
t to
a co
here
nt in
terp
reta
tion
in re
latio
n to
the
othe
r tw
o sit
uatio
ns re
ferr
ed to
in A
rtic
le 1
5 of
th
e Di
rect
ive
and
mus
t th
eref
ore
be
inte
rpre
ted
by c
lose
refe
renc
e to
that
indi
vidu
alisa
tion
lsquo39
In
that
rega
rd t
he m
ore
the
appl
ican
t is a
ble
to sh
ow th
at h
e is
spec
ifica
lly a
ffect
ed b
y re
ason
of
fact
ors p
artic
ular
to h
is pe
rson
al c
ircum
stan
ces
the
low
er th
e le
vel o
f ind
iscrim
inat
e vi
olen
ce re
quire
d fo
r hi
m to
be
elig
ible
for s
ubsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
rsquo
Para
42
lsquo42
Acco
rdin
g to
sett
led
case
-law
in a
pply
ing
natio
nal l
aw w
heth
er th
e pr
ovisi
ons i
n qu
estio
n w
ere
adop
ted
befo
re o
r afte
r the
dire
ctiv
e th
e na
tiona
l cou
rt c
alle
d up
on to
inte
rpre
t it i
s req
uire
d to
do
so a
s fa
r as p
ossib
le i
n th
e lig
ht o
f the
wor
ding
and
the
purp
ose
of th
e di
rect
ive
in o
rder
to a
chie
ve th
e re
sult
purs
ued
by th
e la
tter
and
ther
eby
com
ply
with
the
third
par
agra
ph o
f Art
icle
249
EC
rsquo
Mar
le a
sing
C-1
068
9
13 Novem
ber1
990
Com
mun
e de
Mes
quer
C-1880724 June
2008
NA v
Uni
ted
King
dom
C-1151530 June
2016
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 7
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
Sam
ba D
iouf
v M
inist
re
du T
rava
il d
e lrsquoE
mpl
oi e
t de
lrsquoIm
mig
ratio
n
C-69
10
EUC
201
152
4
280
720
11
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
39
of C
ounc
il Directive20
0585EC
of1
Decem
ber2
005on
minim
umstan
dardso
nproced
uresin
Mem
berS
tatesfor
gran
ting
and
with
draw
ing
refu
gee
stat
us
Dire
ctiv
e 20
058
5EC
ndash M
inim
um st
anda
rds o
n pr
oced
ures
in M
embe
r Sta
tes f
or g
rant
ing
and
with
draw
ing
refu
gee
stat
us ndash
lsquoDec
ision
take
n on
[the
] app
licat
ion
for a
sylu
mrsquo w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of
Artic
le 3
9 of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
058
5 ndash
Appl
icat
ion
by a
third
cou
ntry
nat
iona
l for
refu
gee
stat
us ndash
Fai
lure
to
pro
vide
reas
ons j
ustif
ying
the
gran
t of i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n ndash
Appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
und
er a
n ac
cele
rate
d pr
oced
ure
ndash N
o re
med
y ag
ains
t the
dec
ision
to d
eal w
ith th
e ap
plic
atio
n un
der a
n ac
cele
rate
d pr
oced
ure
ndash Ri
ght t
o ef
fect
ive
judi
cial
revi
ew
Para
s 6
5-68
lsquo65
In th
at re
gard
it m
ust b
e st
ated
at t
he o
utse
t tha
t the
diff
eren
ces t
hat e
xist
in
the
natio
nal r
ules
be
twee
n th
e ac
cele
rate
d pr
oced
ure
and
the
ordi
nary
pro
cedu
re t
he e
ffect
of w
hich
is th
at th
e tim
e-lim
it fo
r brin
ging
an
actio
n is
shor
tene
d an
d th
at th
ere
is on
ly o
ne le
vel o
f jur
isdic
tion
are
con
nect
ed w
ith th
e na
ture
of t
he p
roce
dure
put
in p
lace
The
pro
visio
ns a
t iss
ue in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s are
inte
nded
to
ensu
re th
at u
nfou
nded
or i
nadm
issib
le a
pplic
atio
ns fo
r asy
lum
are
pro
cess
ed m
ore
quic
kly
in o
rder
that
ap
plic
atio
ns su
bmitt
ed b
y pe
rson
s who
hav
e go
od g
roun
ds fo
r ben
efiti
ng fr
om re
fuge
e st
atus
may
be
proc
esse
d m
ore
effic
ient
ly
lsquo66
As r
egar
ds th
e fa
ct th
at th
e tim
e-lim
it fo
r brin
ging
an
actio
n is
15 d
ays i
n th
e ca
se o
f an
acce
lera
ted
proc
edur
e w
hilst
it is
1 m
onth
in th
e ca
se o
f a d
ecisi
on a
dopt
ed u
nder
the
ordi
nary
pro
cedu
re t
he
impo
rtan
t poi
nt a
s the
Adv
ocat
e Ge
nera
l has
stat
ed in
poi
nt 6
3 of
his
Opi
nion
is t
hat t
he p
erio
d pr
escr
ibed
mus
t be
suffi
cien
t in
prac
tical
term
s to
enab
le th
e ap
plic
ant t
o pr
epar
e an
d br
ing
an e
ffect
ive
actio
n
lsquo67
With
rega
rd to
abb
revi
ated
pro
cedu
res
a 1
5-da
y tim
e lim
it fo
r brin
ging
an
actio
n do
es n
ot se
em
gene
rally
to
be in
suffi
cien
t in
prac
tical
term
s to
prep
are
and
brin
g an
effe
ctiv
e ac
tion
and
appe
ars
reas
onab
le a
nd p
ropo
rtio
nate
in re
latio
n to
the
right
s and
inte
rest
s inv
olve
d
lsquo68
It is
how
ever
for
the
natio
nal c
ourt
to d
eter
min
e ndash
shou
ld th
at ti
me-
limit
prov
e in
a g
iven
situ
atio
n
to b
e in
suffi
cien
t in
view
of t
he c
ircum
stan
ces ndash
whe
ther
that
ele
men
t is s
uch
as to
just
ify o
n its
ow
n
upho
ldin
g th
e ac
tion
brou
ght i
ndire
ctly
aga
inst
the
deci
sion
to e
xam
ine
the
appl
icat
ion
for a
sylu
m u
nder
an
acc
eler
ated
pro
cedu
re s
o th
at i
n up
hold
ing
the
actio
n th
e na
tiona
l cou
rt w
ould
ord
er th
at th
e ap
plic
atio
n be
exa
min
ed u
nder
the
ordi
nary
pro
cedu
rersquo
DEB
C-2
790
9
22 Decem
ber2
010
Char
try
C-4
570
9
1 March2011
Safa
lero
C-1
301
11 Sep
tembe
r2003
Wils
on C
-506
04
19 Sep
tembe
r2006
Ange
lidak
i and
Oth
ers
join
ed ca
ses C
-378
07
to
3800723 Ap
ril2009
Impa
ct C
-268
06
15 April2
008
8 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
[GC]
NS
v Se
cret
ary
of
Stat
e fo
r the
Hom
e De
part
men
t and
M
E an
d O
ther
s v
Refu
gee
Appl
icat
ions
Co
mm
issi
oner
and
M
inist
er fo
r Jus
tice
Eq
ualit
y an
d La
w R
efor
m
C-41
110
and
C-4
931
0
EUC
201
186
5
211
220
11
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n fi
rst
of A
rtic
le 3
(2) o
f Co
uncilR
egulation(EC)No34
320
03of1
8 Februa
ry200
3establish
ingthecrite
riaand
mecha
nism
sfor
dete
rmin
ing
the
Mem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
le fo
r exa
min
ing
an a
sylu
m a
pplic
atio
n lo
dged
in o
ne o
f the
M
embe
r Sta
tes b
y a
third
-cou
ntry
nat
iona
l and
sec
ond
the
fund
amen
tal r
ight
s of t
he E
urop
ean
Uni
on
and
third
Pro
toco
l (N
o 30
) on
the
appl
icat
ion
of th
e Ch
arte
r to
Pola
nd a
nd to
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
Euro
pean
Uni
on la
w ndash
Prin
cipl
es ndash
Fun
dam
enta
l rig
hts ndash
Impl
emen
tatio
n of
Eur
opea
n U
nion
law
ndash
Proh
ibiti
on o
f inh
uman
or d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t ndash C
omm
on E
urop
ean
Asyl
um S
yste
m ndash
Reg
ulat
ion
(EC)
N
o 34
320
03 ndash
Con
cept
of lsquo
safe
cou
ntrie
srsquo ndash
Tra
nsfe
r of a
n as
ylum
seek
er to
the
Mem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
le
ndash O
blig
atio
n ndash
Rebu
ttab
le p
resu
mpt
ion
of c
ompl
ianc
e b
y th
at M
embe
r Sta
te w
ith fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts
Para
77
lsquo77
Acc
ordi
ng to
sett
led
case
-law
the
Mem
ber S
tate
s mus
t not
onl
y in
terp
ret t
heir
natio
nal l
aw in
a
man
ner c
onsis
tent
with
Eur
opea
n U
nion
law
but
also
mak
e su
re th
ey d
o no
t rel
y on
an
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
an
inst
rum
ent o
f sec
onda
ry le
gisla
tion
whi
ch w
ould
be
in c
onfli
ct w
ith th
e fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts p
rote
cted
by
the
Euro
pean
Uni
on le
gal o
rder
or w
ith th
e ot
her g
ener
al p
rinci
ples
of E
urop
ean
Uni
on la
wrsquo
Para
94
lsquo94
It fo
llow
s fro
m th
e fo
rego
ing
that
in si
tuat
ions
such
as t
hat a
t iss
ue in
the
case
s in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s to
ens
ure
com
plia
nce
by th
e Eu
rope
an U
nion
and
its M
embe
r Sta
tes w
ith th
eir o
blig
atio
ns
conc
erni
ng th
e pr
otec
tion
of th
e fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts o
f asy
lum
seek
ers
the
Mem
ber S
tate
s in
clud
ing
the
natio
nal c
ourt
s m
ay n
ot tr
ansf
er a
n as
ylum
seek
er to
the
lsquoMem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
lersquo w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of
Reg
ulat
ion
No
343
2003
whe
re th
ey c
anno
t be
unaw
are
that
syst
emic
def
icie
ncie
s in
the
asyl
um
proc
edur
e an
d in
the
rece
ptio
n co
nditi
ons o
f asy
lum
seek
ers i
n th
at M
embe
r Sta
te a
mou
nt to
subs
tant
ial
grou
nds f
or b
elie
ving
that
the
asyl
um se
eker
wou
ld fa
ce a
real
risk
of b
eing
subj
ecte
d to
inhu
man
or
degr
adin
g tr
eatm
ent w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
errsquo
Para
98
lsquo98
The
Mem
ber S
tate
in w
hich
the
asyl
um se
eker
is p
rese
nt m
ust
how
ever
ens
ure
that
it d
oes
not w
orse
n a
situa
tion
whe
re th
e fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts o
f tha
t app
lican
t hav
e be
en in
frin
ged
by u
sing
a pr
oced
ure
for d
eter
min
ing
the
Mem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
le w
hich
take
s an
unre
ason
able
leng
th o
f tim
e
If ne
cess
ary
that
Mem
ber S
tate
mus
t its
elf e
xam
ine
the
appl
icat
ion
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith th
e pr
oced
ure
laid
do
wn
in A
rtic
le 3
(2) o
f Reg
ulat
ion
No
343
2003
rsquo
Wac
haufC-58813 July
1989
Chak
roun
C-5
780
8
4 March2010
McB
C-4
001
0
5 Octob
er2010
ERTC-2608918 June
19
91
Sala
hadi
n Ab
dulla
and
O
ther
s jo
ined
case
s C-
175
08 C
-176
08
C-
178
08 a
nd C
-179
08
2 March2010
Bolb
olC-310917 June
20
10
Lindq
vist
C-1
010
1
6 No
vembe
r2003
Ord
re d
es b
arre
aux
franc
opho
nes e
t ge
rman
opho
ne a
nd
Oth
ers
C-30
505
26 Ju
ne2007
ECtH
R M
SS v
Bel
gium
an
d Gr
eece
[GC
] no
306960921 Janu
ary
2011
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 9
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
99
lsquo99
It fo
llow
s fro
m a
ll of
the
fore
goin
g co
nsid
erat
ions
that
as s
tate
d by
the
Advo
cate
Gen
eral
in
para
grap
h 13
1 of
her
Opi
nion
an
appl
icat
ion
of R
egul
atio
n N
o 34
320
03 o
n th
e ba
sis o
f the
con
clus
ive
pres
umpt
ion
that
the
asyl
um se
eker
rsquos fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts w
ill b
e ob
serv
ed in
the
Mem
ber S
tate
prim
arily
re
spon
sible
for h
is ap
plic
atio
n is
inco
mpa
tible
with
the
duty
of t
he M
embe
r Sta
tes t
o in
terp
ret a
nd a
pply
Re
gula
tion
No
343
2003
in a
man
ner c
onsis
tent
with
fund
amen
tal r
ight
srsquo
ECtH
R K
RS v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(dec
) no
3273308
2 De
cembe
r2008
CJEU
Bund
esre
publ
ik
Deut
schl
and
v Y
and
Z
C-71
11
and
C-99
11
EUC
201
251
8
050
920
12
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
s 2(c
) and
9(1)(a)o
fCou
ncilDirective20
0483EC
of2
9 Ap
ril200
4on
minim
umstan
dardsforth
equ
alificatio
nan
d st
atus
of t
hird
cou
ntry
nat
iona
ls or
Sta
tele
ss p
erso
ns a
s ref
ugee
s or a
s per
sons
who
oth
erw
ise n
eed
inte
rnat
iona
l pro
tect
ion
and
the
cont
ent o
f the
pro
tect
ion
gran
ted
Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3EC
ndash M
inim
um st
anda
rds f
or d
eter
min
ing
who
qua
lifie
s for
refu
gee
stat
us o
r for
su
bsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
stat
us ndash
Cla
ssifi
catio
n as
a lsquor
efug
eersquondash
Def
initi
on o
f lsquoac
ts o
f per
secu
tionrsquo
ndashndash
Relig
ion
as g
roun
d fo
r per
secu
tion
ndash Ac
ts b
y th
e Pa
kist
ani a
utho
ritie
s des
igne
d to
pro
hibi
t the
man
ifest
atio
n of
a
pers
onrsquos
relig
ion
in p
ublic
ndash w
ell-f
ound
ed fe
ar o
f bei
ng p
erse
cute
d on
acc
ount
of h
is re
ligio
n
Para
70
lsquo70
In a
sses
sing
such
a ri
sk t
he c
ompe
tent
aut
horit
ies m
ust t
ake
acco
unt o
f a n
umbe
r of f
acto
rs b
oth
obje
ctiv
e an
d su
bjec
tive
The
subj
ectiv
e ci
rcum
stan
ce th
at th
e ob
serv
ance
of a
cer
tain
relig
ious
pra
ctic
e in
pub
lic w
hich
is su
bjec
t to
the
rest
rictio
ns a
t iss
ue i
s of p
artic
ular
impo
rtan
ce to
the
pers
on c
once
rned
in
ord
er to
pre
serv
e hi
s rel
igio
us id
entit
y is
a re
leva
nt fa
ctor
to b
e ta
ken
into
acc
ount
in d
eter
min
ing
the
leve
l of r
isk to
whi
ch th
e ap
plic
ant w
ill b
e ex
pose
d in
his
coun
try
of o
rigin
on
acco
unt o
f his
relig
ion
eve
n if
the
obse
rvan
ce o
f suc
h a
relig
ious
pra
ctic
e do
es n
ot c
onst
itute
a c
ore
elem
ent o
f fai
th fo
r the
relig
ious
co
mm
unity
con
cern
edrsquo
Sala
hadi
n Ab
dulla
and
O
ther
s jo
ined
Cas
es
C-17
508
C-1
760
8
C-17
808
and
C-1
790
8
2 March2010
Bolb
olC-310917 June
20
10
NS v
Sec
reta
ry o
f St
ate
for t
he H
ome
Depa
rtm
ent a
nd
ME
and
Oth
ers
v Re
fuge
e Ap
plica
tions
Co
mm
issio
ner a
nd
Min
ister
for J
ustic
e
Equa
lity
and
Law
Re
form
joi
ned
Case
s C-
411
10 a
nd C
-493
10
21 Decem
ber2
011
10 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
Cim
ade
and
Gro
upe
drsquoin
form
atio
n et
de
sout
ien
des i
mm
igreacute
s (G
ISTI
) v M
inist
re d
e lrsquoi
nteacuter
ieur
de
lrsquoout
re-
mer
des
colle
ctiv
iteacutes
terr
itoria
les e
t de
lrsquoim
mig
ratio
n
C-17
911
EUC
201
259
4
270
920
12
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Cou
ncil
Dire
ctiv
e 20
039ECof27 Janu
ary20
03laying
dow
nminim
umstan
dardsforth
ereceptionofasylumse
ekersinthe
Mem
ber S
tate
s
Appl
icat
ions
for a
sylu
m ndash
Dire
ctiv
e 20
039
EC
ndash M
inim
um st
anda
rds f
or th
e re
cept
ion
of a
sylu
m se
eker
s in
the
Mem
ber S
tate
s ndash R
egul
atio
n (E
C) N
o 34
320
03 ndash
Obl
igat
ion
to g
uara
ntee
asy
lum
seek
ers m
inim
um
rece
ptio
n co
nditi
ons d
urin
g th
e pr
oced
ure
of ta
king
cha
rge
or ta
king
bac
k by
the
resp
onsib
le M
embe
r St
ate
ndash De
term
inin
g th
e M
embe
r Sta
te o
blig
ed to
ass
ume
the
finan
cial
bur
den
of th
e m
inim
um c
ondi
tions
Para
52
lsquo52
With
rega
rd to
the
dura
tion
of th
e ob
ligat
ion
to g
rant
the
min
imum
rece
ptio
n co
nditi
ons
it sh
ould
be
reca
lled
firs
t as
was
stat
ed in
par
agra
phs 3
6 an
d 37
abo
ve t
hat t
he p
erso
nal s
cope
of D
irect
ive
2003
9 e
ncom
pass
es a
ny a
sylu
m se
eker
who
has
lodg
ed a
n ap
plic
atio
n fo
r asy
lum
for t
he fi
rst t
ime
with
a
Mem
ber S
tate
rsquo
Para
54
lsquo54
Thi
rd i
t fol
low
s fro
m A
rtic
les 1
7 to
19
of R
egul
atio
n N
o 34
320
03 th
at th
e m
ere
requ
est b
y a
Mem
ber S
tate
in re
ceip
t of a
n ap
plic
atio
n fo
r asy
lum
for t
he ta
king
cha
rge
of th
e ap
plic
ant c
once
rned
by
ano
ther
Mem
ber S
tate
doe
s not
brin
g th
e ex
amin
atio
n of
the
appl
icat
ion
for a
sylu
m b
y th
e re
ques
ting
Mem
ber S
tate
to a
n en
d E
ven
whe
re th
e re
ques
ted
Mem
ber S
tate
acc
epts
that
taki
ng c
harg
e th
e fa
ct
neve
rthe
less
rem
ains
that
in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith A
rtic
le 1
9(4)
of R
egul
atio
n N
o 34
320
03 t
he re
spon
sibili
ty
for t
he e
xam
inat
ion
of th
e ap
plic
atio
n fo
r asy
lum
falls
to th
e M
embe
r Sta
te w
ith w
hich
that
app
licat
ion
was
lodg
ed i
f the
tran
sfer
is n
ot c
arrie
d ou
t with
in th
e six
-mon
th p
erio
d F
urth
erm
ore
as s
tate
d in
pa
ragr
aph
44 a
bove
whe
re th
e re
ques
ted
Mem
ber S
tate
repl
ies i
n th
e ne
gativ
e th
e le
gisla
tion
in
ques
tion
prov
ides
onl
y fo
r a v
olun
tary
con
cilia
tion
proc
edur
e an
d in
such
a c
ase
it c
anno
t be
excl
uded
th
at th
e as
ylum
seek
er w
ill re
mai
n in
the
terr
itory
of t
he re
ques
ting
Mem
ber S
tate
rsquo
Para
56
lsquo56
In a
dditi
on f
urth
er to
the
gene
ral s
chem
e an
d pu
rpos
e of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
039
and
the
obse
rvan
ce o
f fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts
in p
artic
ular
the
requ
irem
ents
of A
rtic
le 1
of t
he C
hart
er u
nder
whi
ch h
uman
dig
nity
m
ust b
e re
spec
ted
and
prot
ecte
d th
e as
ylum
seek
er m
ay n
ot a
s sta
ted
in p
arag
raph
s 41
to 4
4 ab
ove
be
depr
ived
ndash e
ven
for a
tem
pora
ry p
erio
d of
tim
e af
ter t
he m
akin
g of
the
appl
icat
ion
for a
sylu
m a
nd b
efor
e be
ing
actu
ally
tran
sfer
red
to th
e re
spon
sible
Mem
ber S
tate
ndash o
f the
pro
tect
ion
of th
e m
inim
um st
anda
rds
laid
dow
n by
that
dire
ctiv
ersquo
None
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 11
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
61
lsquo61
Acc
ordi
ngly
the
answ
er to
the
seco
nd q
uest
ion
is th
at th
e ob
ligat
ion
on a
Mem
ber S
tate
in re
ceip
t of
an
appl
icat
ion
for a
sylu
m to
gra
nt th
e m
inim
um re
cept
ion
cond
ition
s lai
d do
wn
in D
irect
ive
2003
9
to a
n as
ylum
seek
er in
resp
ect o
f who
m it
dec
ides
und
er R
egul
atio
n N
o 34
320
03 t
o ca
ll up
on a
noth
er
Mem
ber S
tate
as t
he M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
for e
xam
inin
g hi
s app
licat
ion
for a
sylu
m t
o ta
ke c
harg
e of
or t
ake
back
that
app
lican
t ce
ases
whe
n th
at sa
me
appl
ican
t is a
ctua
lly tr
ansf
erre
d by
the
requ
estin
g M
embe
r Sta
te a
nd th
e fin
anci
al b
urde
n of
gra
ntin
g th
ose
min
imum
con
ditio
ns is
to b
e as
sum
ed b
y th
at
requ
estin
g M
embe
r Sta
te w
hich
is su
bjec
t to
that
obl
igat
ion
rsquo
CJEU
The
Que
en o
n th
e ap
plic
atio
n of
MA
and
Oth
ers v
Sec
reta
ry o
f St
ate
for t
he H
ome
Depa
rtm
ent
C-64
811
EUC
201
336
7
060
620
13
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g un
der A
rtic
le 2
67 T
FEU
from
the
Cour
t of A
ppea
l (E
ngla
nd a
nd W
ales
) (Ci
vil D
ivisi
on) (
Uni
ted
King
dom
) co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
the
seco
nd
paragrap
hofArticle6ofC
ouncilRe
gulatio
n(EC)No34
320
03of1
8 Februa
ry200
3establish
ingthe
crite
ria a
nd m
echa
nism
s for
det
erm
inin
g th
e M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
for e
xam
inin
g an
asy
lum
ap
plic
atio
n lo
dged
in o
ne o
f the
Mem
ber S
tate
s by
a th
ird-c
ount
ry n
atio
nal
Regu
latio
n (E
C) N
o 34
320
03 ndash
Det
erm
inin
g th
e M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
ndash U
nacc
ompa
nied
min
or ndash
Su
cces
sive
appl
icat
ions
lodg
ed in
two
Mem
ber S
tate
s ndash A
bsen
ce o
f a m
embe
r of t
he fa
mily
of t
he m
inor
in
the
terr
itory
of a
Mem
ber S
tate
ndash T
rans
fer o
f the
min
or to
the
Mem
ber S
tate
in w
hich
he
lodg
ed h
is fir
st
appl
icat
ion
ndash Co
mpa
tibili
ty ndash
Chi
ldrsquos
best
inte
rest
s
Para
57
lsquo57
Tho
se fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts i
nclu
de i
n pa
rtic
ular
tha
t set
out
in A
rtic
le 2
4(2)
of t
he C
hart
er w
here
by in
al
l act
ions
rela
ting
to c
hild
ren
whe
ther
take
n by
pub
lic a
utho
ritie
s or p
rivat
e in
stitu
tions
the
chi
ldrsquos
best
in
tere
sts a
re to
be
a pr
imar
y co
nsid
erat
ion
rsquo
Djab
ali
C-31
496
12 M
arch1998
Garc
iacutea B
lanc
o C
-225
02
20 Janu
ary2005
Unioacute
de
Page
sos d
e Ca
talu
nya
C-1
971
0
15 Sep
tembe
r2011
Rose
nbla
dt C
-45
09
12 Octob
er2010
Mig
ratio
nsve
rket
v
Edga
r Pet
rosia
n an
d O
ther
s C-
190
8
29 Janu
ary2009
Detiček
C-40
309
23 Decem
ber2
009
McB
C-
400
10
5 Octob
er2010
12 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
Min
ister
voo
r Im
mig
ratie
en
Asi
el v
X Y
and
Z v
M
inist
er v
oor I
mm
igra
tie
en A
siel
Join
ed c
ases
C-1
991
2 to
C-
201
12
EUC
201
372
0
071
120
13
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
conc
erni
ng th
e in
terp
reta
tion
of A
rtic
le 9
(1)(a
) of C
ounc
il Directive20
0483EC
of2
9 Ap
ril200
4on
minim
umstan
dardsforth
equ
alificatio
nan
dstatusofthird-
coun
try
natio
nals
or S
tate
less
per
sons
as r
efug
ees o
r as p
erso
ns w
ho o
ther
wise
nee
d in
tern
atio
nal
prot
ectio
n an
d th
e co
nten
t of t
he p
rote
ctio
n gr
ante
d re
ad in
con
junc
tion
with
Art
icle
9(2
)(c) a
nd A
rtic
le
10(1
)(d) t
here
of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3EC
ndash M
inim
um st
anda
rds r
elat
ing
to th
e co
nditi
ons f
or g
rant
ing
refu
gee
stat
us o
r su
bsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
stat
us ndash
Mem
bers
hip
of a
par
ticul
ar so
cial
gro
up ndash
Sex
ual o
rient
atio
n ndash
Conc
ept o
f lsquop
erse
cutio
nrsquo ndash
pers
ecut
ed o
n ac
coun
t of m
embe
rshi
p of
a p
artic
ular
soci
al g
roup
Para
40
lsquo40
The
Dire
ctiv
e m
ust
for t
hat r
easo
n b
e in
terp
rete
d in
the
light
of i
ts g
ener
al sc
hem
e an
d pu
rpos
e a
nd
in a
man
ner c
onsis
tent
with
the
Gene
va C
onve
ntio
n an
d th
e ot
her r
elev
ant t
reat
ies r
efer
red
to in
Art
icle
78
(1) T
FEU
As i
s app
aren
t fro
m re
cita
l 10
in th
e pr
eam
ble
ther
eto
the
dire
ctiv
e m
ust a
lso b
e in
terp
rete
d in
a m
anne
r con
siste
nt w
ith th
e rig
hts r
ecog
nise
d by
the
Char
terrsquo
Para
s 5
3-54
lsquo53
It i
s cle
ar fr
om th
ose
prov
ision
s tha
t fo
r a v
iola
tion
of fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts t
o co
nstit
ute
pers
ecut
ion
with
in th
e m
eani
ng o
f Art
icle
1(A
) of t
he G
enev
a Co
nven
tion
it m
ust b
e su
ffici
ently
serio
us T
here
fore
no
t all
viol
atio
ns o
f fun
dam
enta
l rig
hts s
uffe
red
by a
hom
osex
ual a
sylu
m se
eker
will
nec
essa
rily
reac
h th
at
leve
l of s
erio
usne
ss
lsquo54
In th
at c
onne
ctio
n it
mus
t be
stat
ed a
t the
out
set t
hat t
he fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts s
peci
fical
ly li
nked
to
the
sexu
al o
rient
atio
n co
ncer
ned
in e
ach
of th
e ca
ses i
n th
e m
ain
proc
eedi
ngs
such
as t
he ri
ght t
o re
spec
t fo
r priv
ate
and
fam
ily li
fe w
hich
is p
rote
cted
by
Artic
le 8
of t
he E
CHR
to w
hich
Art
icle
7 o
f the
Cha
rter
co
rres
pond
s re
ad to
geth
er w
here
nec
essa
ry w
ith A
rtic
le 1
4 EC
HR o
n w
hich
Art
icle
21(
1) o
f the
Cha
rter
is
base
d is
not
am
ong
the
fund
amen
tal h
uman
righ
ts fr
om w
hich
no
dero
gatio
n is
poss
ible
rsquo
Para
s 5
6-57
lsquo56
How
ever
the
term
of i
mpr
isonm
ent w
hich
acc
ompa
nies
a le
gisla
tive
prov
ision
whi
ch l
ike
thos
e at
iss
ue in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s p
unish
es h
omos
exua
l act
s is c
apab
le i
n its
elf o
f con
stitu
ting
an a
ct o
f pe
rsec
utio
n w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 9
(1) o
f the
Dire
ctiv
e p
rovi
ded
that
it is
act
ually
app
lied
in th
e co
untr
y of
orig
in w
hich
ado
pted
such
legi
slatio
n
Y an
d Z
join
ed ca
ses
C-71
11
and
C-99
11
5 Septem
ber2
012
Abed
El K
arem
El K
ott
and
Oth
ers
C-36
411
19 Decem
ber2
012
Sala
hadi
n Ab
dulla
and
O
ther
s jo
ined
case
s C-
175
08 C
-176
08
C-
178
08 a
nd C
-179
08
2 March2010
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 13
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo57
Suc
h a
sanc
tion
infr
inge
s Art
icle
8 E
CHR
to w
hich
Art
icle
7 o
f the
Cha
rter
cor
resp
onds
and
co
nstit
utes
pun
ishm
ent w
hich
is d
ispro
port
iona
te o
r disc
rimin
ator
y w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 9
(2)(c
) of
the
Dire
ctiv
ersquo
Para
s 6
3-64
lsquo63
In o
rder
to a
nsw
er th
at q
uest
ion
that
the
refe
rrin
g co
urt h
as d
ivid
ed in
to se
vera
l par
ts i
t mus
t be
obse
rved
that
it re
fers
to a
situ
atio
n in
whi
ch a
s in
the
case
s in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s th
e ap
plic
ant
has n
ot sh
own
that
he
has a
lread
y be
en p
erse
cute
d or
has
alre
ady
been
subj
ect t
o di
rect
thre
ats o
f pe
rsec
utio
n on
acc
ount
of h
is m
embe
rshi
p of
a p
artic
ular
soci
al g
roup
who
se m
embe
rs sh
are
the
sam
e se
xual
orie
ntat
ion
lsquo64
The
lack
of s
uch
a se
rious
indi
catio
n of
a w
ell-f
ound
ed fe
ar o
n th
e pa
rt o
f the
app
lican
ts w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 4
(4) o
f the
Dire
ctiv
e e
xpla
ins t
he re
ferr
ing
cour
trsquos n
eed
to k
now
to w
hat e
xten
t it m
ay
be o
pen
to it
whe
re a
n ap
plic
ant c
anno
t bas
e hi
s fea
r on
pers
ecut
ion
alre
ady
suffe
red
on a
ccou
nt o
f hi
s mem
bers
hip
of th
at g
roup
to
requ
ire th
at o
n re
turn
to h
is co
untr
y of
orig
in h
e sh
ould
con
tinue
to
avoi
d th
e ris
k of
per
secu
tion
by c
once
alin
g hi
s hom
osex
ualit
y or
at t
he v
ery
leas
t th
at h
e sh
ould
exe
rcise
re
stra
int i
n ex
pres
sing
his s
exua
l orie
ntat
ion
rsquo
CJEU
Fede
ral a
gent
shap
vo
or d
e op
vang
van
as
ielzo
eker
s v S
elve
r Sa
ciri
Dan
ijela
Dor
devi
c
Danj
el S
aciri
San
ela
Saci
ri D
enis
Sac
iri
Ope
nbaa
r Cen
trum
voo
r M
aats
chap
pelij
k W
elzi
jn
van
Dies
t
C-79
13
EUC
201
410
3
270
220
14
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ns th
e in
terp
reta
tion
of A
rtic
le 1
3(5)
of C
ounc
il Directive20
039ECof27 Janu
ary20
03laying
dow
nminim
umstan
dardsforth
ereceptionofasylum
seek
ers
Dire
ctiv
e 20
039
EC
ndash M
inim
um st
anda
rds f
or th
e re
cept
ion
of a
sylu
m se
eker
s in
the
Mem
ber S
tate
s ndash
Tim
e-lim
its fo
r mat
eria
l rec
eptio
n co
nditi
ons ndash
Pro
visio
ns o
n m
ater
ial r
ecep
tion
cond
ition
s ndash G
uara
ntee
s ndash
Sett
ing
and
gran
t of m
inim
um re
cept
ion
cond
ition
s for
asy
lum
seek
ers ndash
Size
of t
he a
id g
rant
ed
Para
34
lsquo34
It is
app
aren
t fro
m th
e ve
ry te
rms o
f Art
icle
13(
1) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
039
that
the
mat
eria
l rec
eptio
n co
nditi
ons m
ust b
e av
aila
ble
to a
sylu
m se
eker
s w
heth
er p
rovi
ded
in k
ind
or in
the
form
of f
inan
cial
al
low
ance
s w
hen
they
mak
e th
eir a
pplic
atio
n fo
r asy
lum
rsquo
Para
41
lsquo41
It fo
llow
s the
refr
om th
at a
lthou
gh th
e am
ount
of t
he fi
nanc
ial a
id g
rant
ed is
to b
e de
term
ined
by
each
Mem
ber S
tate
it m
ust b
e su
ffici
ent t
o en
sure
a d
igni
fied
stan
dard
of l
ivin
g an
d ad
equa
te fo
r the
he
alth
of a
pplic
ants
and
cap
able
of e
nsur
ing
thei
r sub
siste
nce
rsquo
Cim
ade
and
GIST
I C-1791127 Septem
ber
2012
14 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
42
lsquo42
In th
e co
ntex
t of s
ettin
g th
e m
ater
ial r
ecep
tion
cond
ition
s in
the
form
of f
inan
cial
allo
wan
ces
pu
rsua
nt to
the
seco
nd su
bpar
agra
ph o
f Art
icle
13(
2) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
039
the
Mem
ber S
tate
s are
requ
ired
to a
djus
t the
rece
ptio
n co
nditi
ons t
o th
e sit
uatio
n of
per
sons
hav
ing
spec
ific
need
s a
s ref
erre
d to
in
Artic
le 1
7 of
the
dire
ctiv
e A
ccor
ding
ly th
e fin
anci
al a
llow
ance
s mus
t be
suffi
cien
t to
pres
erve
fam
ily u
nity
an
d th
e be
st in
tere
sts o
f the
chi
ld w
hich
pur
suan
t to
Artic
le 1
8(1)
are
to b
e a
prim
ary
cons
ider
atio
nrsquo
Para
45
lsquo45
How
ever
alth
ough
Art
icle
14(
3) o
f tha
t dire
ctiv
e do
es n
ot a
pply
whe
re th
e m
ater
ial r
ecep
tion
cond
ition
s are
pro
vide
d ex
clus
ivel
y in
the
form
of f
inan
cial
allo
wan
ces
the
fact
rem
ains
that
thos
e al
low
ance
s mus
t ena
ble
if n
eces
sary
min
or c
hild
ren
of a
sylu
m se
eker
s to
be h
ouse
d w
ith th
eir p
aren
ts
so th
at th
e fa
mily
uni
ty a
s ref
erre
d to
in p
arag
raph
41
of th
e pr
esen
t jud
gmen
t is
mai
ntai
ned
rsquo
Para
48
lsquo48
In th
at re
gard
it i
s nec
essa
ry to
bea
r in
min
d th
at i
f the
Mem
ber S
tate
s are
not
in a
pos
ition
to g
rant
th
e m
ater
ial r
ecep
tion
cond
ition
s in
kind
Dire
ctiv
e 20
039
leav
es th
em th
e po
ssib
ility
of o
ptin
g to
gra
nt
the
mat
eria
l rec
eptio
n co
nditi
ons i
n th
e fo
rm o
f fin
anci
al a
llow
ance
s T
hose
allo
wan
ces m
ust
how
ever
be
suffi
cien
t to
mee
t the
bas
ic n
eeds
of a
sylu
m se
eker
s in
clud
ing
a di
gnifi
ed st
anda
rd o
f liv
ing
and
mus
t be
adeq
uate
for t
heir
heal
thrsquo
Para
49
lsquo49
Giv
en th
at th
e M
embe
r Sta
tes h
ave
a ce
rtai
n m
argi
n of
disc
retio
n as
rega
rds t
he m
etho
ds b
y w
hich
th
ey p
rovi
de th
e m
ater
ial r
ecep
tion
cond
ition
s th
ey m
ay th
us m
ake
paym
ent o
f the
fina
ncia
l allo
wan
ces
usin
g th
e bo
dies
whi
ch fo
rm p
art o
f the
gen
eral
pub
lic a
ssist
ance
syst
em a
s int
erm
edia
ry p
rovi
ded
that
th
ose
bodi
es e
nsur
e th
at th
e m
inim
um st
anda
rds l
aid
dow
n in
that
dire
ctiv
e as
rega
rds t
he a
sylu
m se
eker
s ar
e m
etrsquo
Para
50
lsquo50
In th
at re
gard
it m
ust b
e po
inte
d ou
t tha
t it i
s for
the
Mem
ber S
tate
s to
ensu
re th
at th
ose
bodi
es
mee
t the
min
imum
stan
dard
s for
the
rece
ptio
n of
asy
lum
seek
ers
satu
ratio
n of
the
rece
ptio
n ne
twor
ks
not b
eing
a ju
stifi
catio
n fo
r any
der
ogat
ion
from
mee
ting
thos
e st
anda
rdsrsquo
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 15
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
[GC]
A B
and
C v
St
aats
secr
etar
is v
an
Veili
ghei
d en
Just
itie
Join
ed C
ases
C-1
481
3 to
C-
150
13
ECLI
EU
C2
014
2406
021
220
14
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
n th
e in
terp
reta
tion
of A
rtic
le 4
of C
ounc
il Directive20
0483EC
of2
9 Ap
ril200
4on
minim
umstan
dardsforth
equ
alificatio
nan
dstatusofthird
coun
try
natio
nals
or st
atel
ess p
erso
ns a
s ref
ugee
s or a
s per
sons
who
oth
erw
ise n
eed
inte
rnat
iona
l pr
otec
tion
and
the
cont
ent o
f the
pro
tect
ion
gran
ted
and
Artic
les 3
and
7 o
f the
Cha
rter
of F
unda
men
tal
Righ
ts o
f the
Eur
opea
n U
nion
Area
of f
reed
om s
ecur
ity a
nd ju
stic
e mdash
Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3EC
mdash M
inim
um st
anda
rds f
or g
rant
ing
refu
gee
stat
us o
r sub
sidia
ry p
rote
ctio
n st
atus
mdash A
rtic
le 4
mdash A
sses
smen
t of f
acts
and
circ
umst
ance
s mdash M
etho
ds
of a
sses
smen
t mdash A
ccep
tanc
e of
cer
tain
type
s of e
vide
nce
mdash E
xten
t of t
he c
ompe
tent
nat
iona
l aut
horit
yrsquos
pow
ers mdash
Fea
r of p
erse
cutio
n on
gro
unds
of s
exua
l orie
ntat
ion
Para
57
lsquo57
It sh
ould
be
note
d in
that
rega
rd th
at i
n ac
cord
ance
with
Art
icle
4(3
)(c) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3 th
at
asse
ssm
ent m
ust b
e m
ade
on a
n in
divi
dual
bas
is an
d m
ust t
ake
acco
unt o
f the
indi
vidu
al si
tuat
ion
and
pers
onal
circ
umst
ance
s of t
he a
pplic
ant
incl
udin
g fa
ctor
s suc
h as
bac
kgro
und
gen
der a
nd a
ge i
n or
der
for i
t to
be d
eter
min
ed w
heth
er o
n th
e ba
sis o
f the
app
lican
trsquos p
erso
nal c
ircum
stan
ces
the
acts
to w
hich
th
e ap
plic
ant h
as b
een
or c
ould
be
expo
sed
wou
ld a
mou
nt to
per
secu
tion
or se
rious
har
mrsquo
Para
s 6
1-62
lsquo61
In th
at re
spec
t it
shou
ld b
e re
calle
d th
at A
rtic
le 4
(3)(c
) of D
irect
ive
2004
83
requ
ires t
he c
ompe
tent
au
thor
ities
to c
arry
out
an
asse
ssm
ent t
hat t
akes
acc
ount
of t
he in
divi
dual
pos
ition
and
per
sona
l ci
rcum
stan
ces o
f the
app
lican
t and
that
Art
icle
13(
3)(a
) of D
irect
ive
2005
85
requ
ires t
hose
aut
horit
ies
to c
ondu
ct th
e in
terv
iew
in a
man
ner t
hat t
akes
acc
ount
of t
he p
erso
nal a
nd g
ener
al c
ircum
stan
ces
surr
ound
ing
the
appl
icat
ion
lsquo62
Whi
le q
uest
ions
bas
ed o
n st
ereo
type
d no
tions
may
be
a us
eful
ele
men
t at t
he d
ispos
al o
f com
pete
nt
auth
oriti
es fo
r the
pur
pose
s of t
he a
sses
smen
t th
e as
sess
men
t of a
pplic
atio
ns fo
r the
gra
nt o
f ref
ugee
st
atus
on
the
basis
sole
ly o
f ste
reot
yped
not
ions
ass
ocia
ted
with
hom
osex
uals
does
not
nev
erth
eles
s
satis
fy th
e re
quire
men
ts o
f the
pro
visio
ns re
ferr
ed to
in th
e pr
evio
us p
arag
raph
in
that
it d
oes n
ot a
llow
th
ose
auth
oriti
es to
take
acc
ount
of t
he in
divi
dual
situ
atio
n an
d pe
rson
al c
ircum
stan
ces o
f the
app
lican
t fo
r asy
lum
con
cern
edrsquo
NC-604128 M
ay
2014
X an
d O
ther
s C-
199
12 to
C-2
011
2
7 No
vembe
r2013
M C
-277
11
22 Novem
ber2
012
16 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
s 6
4-66
rsquo64
In th
e se
cond
pla
ce w
hile
the
natio
nal a
utho
ritie
s are
ent
itled
to c
arry
out
whe
re a
ppro
pria
te
inte
rvie
ws i
n or
der t
o de
term
ine
the
fact
s and
circ
umst
ance
s as r
egar
ds th
e de
clar
ed se
xual
orie
ntat
ion
of
an a
pplic
ant f
or a
sylu
m q
uest
ions
con
cern
ing
deta
ils o
f the
sexu
al p
ract
ices
of t
hat a
pplic
ant a
re c
ontr
ary
to th
e fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts g
uara
ntee
d by
the
Char
ter a
nd i
n pa
rtic
ular
to
the
right
to re
spec
t for
priv
ate
and
fam
ily li
fe a
s affi
rmed
in A
rtic
le 7
ther
eof
lsquo65
In re
latio
n in
the
third
pla
ce t
o th
e op
tion
for t
he n
atio
nal a
utho
ritie
s of a
llow
ing
as c
erta
in
appl
ican
ts in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s pro
pose
d h
omos
exua
l act
s to
be p
erfo
rmed
the
subm
issio
n of
the
appl
ican
ts to
pos
sible
lsquotes
tsrsquo i
n or
der t
o de
mon
stra
te th
eir h
omos
exua
lity
or e
ven
the
prod
uctio
n by
thos
e ap
plic
ants
of e
vide
nce
such
as f
ilms o
f the
ir in
timat
e ac
ts i
t mus
t be
poin
ted
out t
hat
besid
es th
e fa
ct
that
such
evi
denc
e do
es n
ot n
eces
saril
y ha
ve p
roba
tive
valu
e su
ch e
vide
nce
wou
ld o
f its
nat
ure
infr
inge
hu
man
dig
nity
the
resp
ect o
f whi
ch is
gua
rant
eed
by A
rtic
le 1
of t
he C
hart
er
lsquo66
Fur
ther
mor
e th
e ef
fect
of a
utho
risin
g or
acc
eptin
g su
ch ty
pes o
f evi
denc
e w
ould
be
to in
cite
oth
er
appl
ican
ts to
offe
r the
sam
e an
d w
ould
lead
de
fact
o to
requ
iring
app
lican
ts to
pro
vide
such
evi
denc
ersquo
Para
69
rsquo69
How
ever
hav
ing
rega
rd to
the
sens
itive
nat
ure
of q
uest
ions
rela
ting
to a
per
sonrsquo
s per
sona
l ide
ntity
an
d in
par
ticul
ar h
is se
xual
ity i
t can
not b
e co
nclu
ded
that
the
decl
ared
sexu
ality
lack
s cre
dibi
lity
simpl
y be
caus
e d
ue to
his
retic
ence
in re
veal
ing
intim
ate
aspe
cts o
f his
life
that
per
son
did
not d
ecla
re h
is ho
mos
exua
lity
at th
e ou
tset
rsquo
Para
70
lsquo70
Mor
eove
r it
mus
t be
obse
rved
that
the
oblig
atio
n la
id d
own
by A
rtic
le 4
(1) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3 to
subm
it al
l ele
men
ts n
eede
d to
subs
tant
iate
the
appl
icat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n lsquoa
s soo
n as
po
ssib
lersquo i
s tem
pere
d by
the
requ
irem
ent i
mpo
sed
on th
e co
mpe
tent
aut
horit
ies
und
er A
rtic
le 1
3(3)
(a) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
058
5 an
d Ar
ticle
4(3
) of D
irect
ive
2004
83
to c
ondu
ct th
e in
terv
iew
taki
ng a
ccou
nt o
f th
e pe
rson
al o
r gen
eral
circ
umst
ance
s sur
roun
ding
the
appl
icat
ion
in p
artic
ular
the
vul
nera
bilit
y of
the
appl
ican
t an
d to
car
ry o
ut a
n in
divi
dual
ass
essm
ent o
f the
app
licat
ion
taki
ng a
ccou
nt o
f the
indi
vidu
al
posit
ion
and
pers
onal
circ
umst
ance
s of e
ach
appl
ican
trsquo
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 17
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
Khal
ed B
oudj
lida
v Pr
eacutefet
des
Pyr
eacuteneacutee
s-At
lant
ique
s
C-24
913
EUC
201
424
31
111
220
14
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
6 o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
081
15E
C fo
r ret
urni
ng il
lega
lly st
ayin
g th
ird-c
ount
ry n
atio
nals
and
of th
e rig
ht to
be
hear
d in
all
proc
eedi
ngs
Dire
ctiv
e 20
081
15E
C mdash
Ret
urn
of il
lega
lly st
ayin
g th
ird-c
ount
ry n
atio
nals
mdash P
rinci
ple
of re
spec
t for
the
right
s of t
he d
efen
ce mdash
Rig
ht o
f an
illeg
ally
stay
ing
third
-cou
ntry
nat
iona
l to
be h
eard
bef
ore
the
adop
tion
of a
dec
ision
liab
le to
affe
ct h
is in
tere
sts mdash
Ret
urn
deci
sion
mdash R
ight
to b
e he
ard
befo
re th
e re
turn
de
cisio
n is
issue
d mdash
Ext
ent o
f tha
t rig
ht
Para
s 3
3-34
lsquo33
Con
sequ
ently
an
appl
ican
t for
a re
siden
t per
mit
cann
ot d
eriv
e fr
om A
rtic
le 4
1(2)
(a) o
f the
Ch
arte
r a ri
ght t
o be
hea
rd in
all
proc
eedi
ngs r
elat
ing
to h
is ap
plic
atio
n (t
he ju
dgm
ent i
n M
ukar
ubeg
a
EUC
201
423
36 p
arag
raph
44)
lsquo34
Suc
h a
right
is h
owev
er in
here
nt in
resp
ect f
or th
e rig
hts o
f the
def
ence
whi
ch is
a g
ener
al p
rinci
ple
of E
U la
w (t
he ju
dgm
ent i
n M
ukar
ubeg
a E
UC
201
423
36 p
arag
raph
45)
rsquo
Muk
arub
ega
C-1
661
3
5 No
vembe
r2014
Kam
ino
Inte
rnat
iona
l Lo
gist
ics C
-129
13
3 July2014
YS a
nd O
ther
s C-
141
12
andC-3721217 July
2014
Cica
la C
-482
10
21 Decem
ber2
011
M C
-277
11
22 Novem
ber2
012
Tech
nisc
he U
nive
rsitauml
t M
uumlnch
en C
-269
90
21 Novem
ber1
991
Sopr
opeacute
C-3
490
7
18 Decem
ber2
008
G an
d R
C-3
831
3
10 Sep
tembe
r2013
Alas
sini a
nd O
ther
s C-
317
08 to
C-3
200
8
18 M
arch2010
Texd
ata
Softw
are
C-4181126 Septem
ber
2013
Achu
ghba
bian
C-329116 Decem
ber
2011
18 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
[GC]
Moh
amed
MrsquoB
odj v
Eacuteta
t be
lge
C-54
213
EUC
201
424
52
181
220
14
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
s 2(e
) and
(f)
151
820(3)2
8an
d29
ofC
ouncilDirective20
0483EC
of2
9 Ap
ril200
4on
minim
umstan
dardsforth
equ
alifi
catio
n an
d st
atus
of t
hird
cou
ntry
nat
iona
ls or
stat
eles
s per
sons
as r
efug
ees o
r as p
erso
ns w
ho
othe
rwise
nee
d in
tern
atio
nal p
rote
ctio
n an
d th
e co
nten
t of t
he p
rote
ctio
n gr
ante
d
Char
ter o
f Fun
dam
enta
l Rig
hts o
f the
Eur
opea
n U
nion
mdash D
irect
ive
2004
83
EC ndash
ndash M
inim
um st
anda
rds
for d
eter
min
ing
who
qua
lifie
s for
refu
gee
stat
us o
r sub
sidia
ry p
rote
ctio
n st
atus
mdash To
rtur
e or
inhu
man
or
deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent o
r pun
ishm
ent o
f an
appl
ican
t in
the
coun
try
of o
rigin
mdash M
ore
favo
urab
le
stan
dard
s mdash A
pplic
ant s
uffe
ring
from
a se
rious
illn
ess mdash
No
appr
opria
te tr
eatm
ent a
vaila
ble
in th
e co
untr
y of
orig
in mdash
Soci
al p
rote
ctio
n mdash
Heal
th c
are
Para
s 3
5-37
lsquo35
Acc
ordi
ngly
Art
icle
6 o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3 se
ts o
ut a
list
of t
hose
dee
med
resp
onsib
le fo
r inf
lictin
g se
rious
har
m w
hich
supp
orts
the
view
that
such
har
m m
ust t
ake
the
form
of c
ondu
ct o
n th
e pa
rt o
f a
third
par
ty a
nd th
at it
can
not t
here
fore
sim
ply
be th
e re
sult
of g
ener
al sh
ortc
omin
gs in
the
heal
th
syst
em o
f the
cou
ntry
of o
rigin
lsquo36
Sim
ilarly
rec
ital 2
6 in
the
prea
mbl
e to
Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3 st
ates
that
risk
s to
whi
ch th
e po
pula
tion
of a
cou
ntry
or a
sect
ion
of th
e po
pula
tion
is ge
nera
lly e
xpos
ed d
o no
t nor
mal
ly in
them
selv
es c
reat
e an
indi
vidu
al th
reat
whi
ch w
ould
qua
lify
as se
rious
har
m I
t fol
low
s tha
t the
risk
of d
eter
iora
tion
in th
e he
alth
of a
third
cou
ntry
nat
iona
l suf
ferin
g fr
om a
serio
us il
lnes
s as a
resu
lt of
the
abse
nce
of a
ppro
pria
te
trea
tmen
t in
his c
ount
ry o
f orig
in is
not
suffi
cien
t un
less
that
third
cou
ntry
nat
iona
l is i
nten
tiona
lly
depr
ived
of h
ealth
car
e to
war
rant
that
per
son
bein
g gr
ante
d su
bsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
lsquo37
Tha
t int
erpr
etat
ion
is al
so su
ppor
ted
by re
cita
ls 5
6 9
and
24
in th
e pr
eam
ble
to D
irect
ive
2004
83
fr
om w
hich
it is
app
aren
t tha
t w
hile
the
dire
ctiv
e is
inte
nded
to c
ompl
emen
t and
add
to b
y m
eans
of
subs
idia
ry p
rote
ctio
n th
e pr
otec
tion
of re
fuge
es e
nshr
ined
in th
e Co
nven
tion
rela
ting
to th
e St
atus
of
Refugeessigne
dinGen
evaon
28 July195
1th
roug
htheiden
tificationofpersonsgen
uine
lyin
nee
dof
inte
rnat
iona
l pro
tect
ion
(see
to
that
effe
ct j
udgm
ent i
n Di
akiteacute
EU
C2
014
39 p
arag
raph
33)
its
scop
e do
es n
ot e
xten
d to
per
sons
gra
nted
leav
e to
resid
e in
the
terr
itorie
s of t
he M
embe
r Sta
tes f
or o
ther
re
ason
s th
at is
on
a di
scre
tiona
ry b
asis
on c
ompa
ssio
nate
or h
uman
itaria
n gr
ound
srsquo
Elga
faji
C-4
650
7
17 Fe
bruary2009
Diak
iteacute C
-285
12
30 Janu
ary2014
Maa
tsch
ap LA
en
DAB
Lang
estr
aat e
n P
Lang
estr
aat-T
roos
t C-111213 De
cembe
r20
12
ECtH
R N
v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m[G
C]27 May
2008no 2656505
30 Octob
er1991
B an
d D
C-5
709
and
C-101099 Novem
ber
2010
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 19
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
39
lsquo39
It sh
ould
be
note
d in
that
rega
rd th
at a
ccor
ding
to th
e ca
se-la
w o
f the
Eur
opea
n Co
urt o
f Hum
an
Righ
ts th
at w
hile
non
-nat
iona
ls su
bjec
t to
a de
cisio
n au
thor
ising
thei
r rem
oval
can
not
in p
rinci
ple
cla
im
any
entit
lem
ent t
o re
mai
n in
the
terr
itory
of a
Sta
te in
ord
er to
con
tinue
to b
enef
it fr
om m
edic
al s
ocia
l or
oth
er fo
rms o
f ass
istan
ce a
nd se
rvic
es p
rovi
ded
by th
at S
tate
a d
ecisi
on to
rem
ove
a fo
reig
n na
tiona
l su
fferin
g fr
om a
serio
us p
hysic
al o
r men
tal i
llnes
s to
a co
untr
y w
here
the
faci
litie
s for
the
trea
tmen
t of
the
illne
ss a
re in
ferio
r to
thos
e av
aila
ble
in th
at S
tate
may
raise
an
issue
und
er A
rtic
le 3
ECH
R in
ver
y ex
cept
iona
l cas
es w
here
the
hum
anita
rian
grou
nds a
gain
st re
mov
al a
re c
ompe
lling
rsquo
CJEU
[GC]
Meh
rdad
Ghe
zelb
ash
v St
aats
secr
etar
is v
an
Veili
ghei
d en
Just
itie
C-63
15
EUC
201
640
9
176
201
6
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
27
of
Regu
latio
n(EU)N
o60
420
13ofthe
Europ
eanParliam
enta
ndofthe
Cou
ncilof26 June
201
3establish
ing
the
crite
ria a
nd m
echa
nism
s for
det
erm
inin
g th
e M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
for e
xam
inin
g an
app
licat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n lo
dged
in o
ne o
f the
Mem
ber S
tate
s by
a th
ird-c
ount
ry n
atio
nal o
r a st
atel
ess
pers
on
Regu
latio
n (E
U) N
o 60
420
13 mdash
Det
erm
inat
ion
of th
e M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
for e
xam
inin
g an
asy
lum
ap
plic
atio
n lo
dged
in o
ne o
f the
Mem
ber S
tate
s by
a th
ird-c
ount
ry n
atio
nal mdash
Art
icle
12
mdash Is
sue
of
resid
ence
doc
umen
ts o
r visa
s mdash A
rtic
le 2
7 mdash
Rem
edie
s mdash E
xten
t of j
udic
ial s
crut
iny
Para
36
lsquo36
It is
app
aren
t fro
m th
e w
ordi
ng o
f Art
icle
27(
1) o
f Reg
ulat
ion
No
604
2013
that
the
lega
l rem
edy
prov
ided
for i
n th
at a
rtic
le m
ust b
e ef
fect
ive
and
cove
r que
stio
ns o
f bot
h fa
ct a
nd la
w M
oreo
ver
the
draf
ting
of th
at p
rovi
sion
mak
es n
o re
fere
nce
to a
ny li
mita
tion
of th
e ar
gum
ents
that
may
be
raise
d by
the
asyl
um se
eker
whe
n av
ailin
g hi
mse
lf of
that
rem
edy
The
sam
e ap
plie
s to
the
draf
ting
of A
rtic
le 4
(1)(d
) of
that
regu
latio
n c
once
rnin
g th
e in
form
atio
n th
at m
ust b
e pr
ovid
ed to
the
appl
ican
t by
the
com
pete
nt
auth
oriti
es a
s to
the
poss
ibili
ty o
f cha
lleng
ing
a tr
ansf
er d
ecisi
onrsquo
NS v
Sec
reta
ry o
f St
ate
for t
he H
ome
Depa
rtm
ent a
nd
ME
and
Oth
ers
v Re
fuge
e Ap
plica
tions
Co
mm
issio
ner a
nd
Min
ister
for J
ustic
e
Equa
lity
and
Law
Re
form
joi
ned
case
s C-
411
10 a
nd C
-493
10
21 Decem
ber2
011
Abdu
llahi
C-3
941
2
10 Decem
ber2
013
Mig
ratio
nsve
rket
v
Edga
r Pet
rosia
n an
d O
ther
s C-
190
8
29 Janu
ary2009
B an
d D
C-5
709
and
C-101099 Novem
ber
2010
20 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
M v
Min
ister
for J
ustic
e an
d Eq
ualit
y Ire
land
and
th
e At
torn
ey G
ener
al
C-56
014
EUC
201
710
1
090
220
17
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ns th
e in
terp
reta
tion
of th
e rig
ht to
be
hear
d in
th
e co
ntex
t of t
he p
roce
dure
for g
rant
of s
ubsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
stat
us u
nder
Cou
ncil
Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3EC
of2
9 Ap
ril200
4on
minim
umstan
dardsforth
equ
alificatio
nan
dstatusofthirdcou
ntrynationa
lsor
stat
eles
s per
sons
as r
efug
ees o
r as p
erso
ns w
ho o
ther
wise
nee
d in
tern
atio
nal p
rote
ctio
n an
d th
e co
nten
t of
the
prot
ectio
n gr
ante
d
Area
of f
reed
om s
ecur
ity a
nd ju
stic
e mdash
Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3EC
mdash M
inim
um st
anda
rds f
or th
e qu
alifi
catio
n an
d st
atus
of t
hird
cou
ntry
nat
iona
ls or
stat
eles
s per
sons
as r
efug
ees mdash
App
licat
ion
for s
ubsid
iary
pr
otec
tion
mdash la
wfu
lnes
s of t
he n
atio
nal p
roce
dure
for e
xam
inin
g an
app
licat
ion
for s
ubsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
mad
e af
ter t
he re
ject
ion
of a
n ap
plic
atio
n fo
r ref
ugee
stat
us mdash
Rig
ht to
be
hear
d mdash
Rig
ht to
an
inte
rvie
w mdash
Rig
ht to
cal
l and
cro
ss-e
xam
ine
witn
esse
s
Para
s 5
1-52
lsquo51
An
inte
rvie
w m
ust a
lso b
e ar
rang
ed if
it is
app
aren
t mdash in
the
light
of t
he p
erso
nal o
r gen
eral
ci
rcum
stan
ces i
n w
hich
the
appl
icat
ion
for s
ubsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
has b
een
mad
e in
par
ticul
ar a
ny sp
ecifi
c vu
lner
abili
ty o
f the
app
lican
t du
e fo
r exa
mpl
e to
his
age
his
stat
e of
hea
lth o
r the
fact
that
he
has b
een
subj
ecte
d to
serio
us fo
rms o
f vio
lenc
e mdash
that
one
is n
eces
sary
in o
rder
to a
llow
him
to c
omm
ent i
n fu
ll an
d co
here
ntly
on
the
elem
ents
cap
able
of s
ubst
antia
ting
that
app
licat
ion
lsquo52
Con
sequ
ently
the
refe
rrin
g co
urt h
as th
e ta
sk o
f est
ablis
hing
whe
ther
in th
e m
ain
proc
eedi
ngs t
here
ar
e sp
ecifi
c ci
rcum
stan
ces t
hat r
ende
r an
inte
rvie
w w
ith th
e ap
plic
ant f
or su
bsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
nece
ssar
y in
ord
er th
at h
is rig
ht to
be
hear
d is
effe
ctiv
ely
obse
rved
rsquo
Danq
ua C
-429
15
20 Octob
er2016
Muk
arub
ega
C-1
661
3
5 No
vembe
r2014
Boud
jlida
C-2
491
3
11 Decem
ber2
014
Leso
ochr
anaacuter
ske
zosk
upen
ie V
LK
C-243158 Novem
ber
2016
Bens
ada
Bena
llal
C-1611517 March
2016
Sopr
opeacute
C-3
490
7
18 Decem
ber2
008
G an
d R
C-8
313
10 Sep
tembe
r2013
M C
-277
11
22 Novem
ber2
012
Aalb
org
Port
land
and
O
ther
s v C
omm
issio
n
C-20
400
P C
-205
00
P C-
211
00 P
C-2
130
0 P
C-21
700
P a
nd
C-21900P7 Janu
ary
2004
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 21
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
CK a
nd O
ther
s v
Repu
blik
a Sl
oven
ija
C-57
816
PPU
EUC
201
712
7
160
220
17
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ns th
e in
terp
reta
tion
of A
rtic
les 3
(2) a
nd
17(1)o
fRegulation(EU)N
o60
420
13ofthe
Europ
eanParliam
enta
ndofthe
Cou
ncilof26 June
201
3es
tabl
ishin
g th
e cr
iteria
and
mec
hani
sms f
or d
eter
min
ing
the
Mem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
le fo
r exa
min
ing
an
appl
icat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n lo
dged
in o
ne o
f the
Mem
ber S
tate
s by
a th
ird-c
ount
ry n
atio
nal o
r a
stat
eles
s per
son
Art
icle
267
TFE
U a
nd A
rtic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
er o
f Fun
dam
enta
l Rig
hts o
f the
Eur
opea
n U
nion
Area
of f
reed
om s
ecur
ity a
nd ju
stic
e mdash
Bor
ders
asy
lum
and
imm
igra
tion
mdash D
ublin
syst
em mdash
Reg
ulat
ion
(EU
) No
604
2013
mdash A
rtic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
er o
f Fun
dam
enta
l Rig
hts o
f the
Eur
opea
n U
nion
mdash In
hum
an o
r de
grad
ing
trea
tmen
t mdash T
rans
fer o
f a se
rious
ly il
l asy
lum
seek
er to
the
Stat
e re
spon
sible
for e
xam
inin
g hi
s ap
plic
atio
n mdash
No
subs
tant
ial g
roun
ds fo
r bel
ievi
ng th
at th
ere
are
prov
en sy
stem
ic fl
aws i
n th
at M
embe
r St
ate
mdash O
blig
atio
ns im
pose
d on
the
Mem
ber S
tate
hav
ing
to c
arry
out
the
tran
sfer
Para
44
lsquo44
It fo
llow
s a
ccor
ding
to th
at c
ourt
tha
t the
re is
an
oblig
atio
n on
the
com
pete
nt a
utho
ritie
s and
the
natio
nal c
ourt
to e
xam
ine
all t
he c
ircum
stan
ces o
f sig
nific
ance
for o
bser
vanc
e of
the
prin
cipl
e of
non
-re
foul
emen
t in
clud
ing
the
stat
e of
hea
lth o
f the
per
son
conc
erne
d in
the
case
whe
re a
n as
ylum
seek
er
clai
ms t
hat t
he M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
for h
is ap
plic
atio
n is
not a
lsquosaf
e St
atersquo
for h
im I
n th
at c
onte
xt
thos
e au
thor
ities
mus
t tak
e in
to a
ccou
nt th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
per
sona
l situ
atio
n in
Slo
veni
a an
d as
sess
whe
ther
th
e m
ere
fact
of t
rans
ferr
ing
that
per
son
mig
ht in
itse
lf be
con
trar
y to
the
prin
cipl
e of
non
-ref
oule
men
trsquo
Para
59
lsquo59
How
ever
in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith th
e se
ttle
d ca
se-la
w o
f the
Cou
rt t
he ru
les o
f sec
onda
ry E
U la
w
incl
udin
g th
e pr
ovisi
ons o
f the
Dub
lin II
I Reg
ulat
ion
mus
t be
inte
rpre
ted
and
appl
ied
in a
man
ner
cons
isten
t with
the
fund
amen
tal r
ight
s gua
rant
eed
by th
e Ch
arte
r (se
e b
y an
alog
y as
rega
rds t
he D
ublin
IIRe
gulatio
nju
dgmen
tof2
1 De
cembe
r201
1N
S a
nd O
ther
s C
-411
10
and
C-49
310
EU
C2
011
865
pa
ragr
aphs
77
and
99)
The
proh
ibiti
on o
f inh
uman
or d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t or p
unish
men
t la
id d
own
in A
rtic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
er i
s in
that
rega
rd o
f fun
dam
enta
l im
port
ance
to
the
exte
nt th
at it
is a
bsol
ute
in th
at it
is c
lose
ly li
nked
to re
spec
t for
hum
an d
igni
ty w
hich
is th
e su
bjec
t of A
rtic
le 1
of t
he C
hart
er
(see
tothateffe
ctjud
gmen
tof5
April20
16A
ranyosi and
Căldă
raru
C-4
041
5 an
d C-
659
15 P
PU
EUC
201
619
8 p
arag
raph
s 85
and
86)rsquo
NS a
nd O
ther
s C-
411
10 a
nd C
-493
10
21 Decem
ber2
011
Aranyosi an
d Că
ldăraru
C-
404
15 a
nd C
-659
15
5 Ap
ril2016
Ghez
elba
sh C
-63
15
7 June
2016
ECtH
R P
apos
hvili
v
Belg
ium
no 4173810
13 Decem
ber2
016
IC-255135 Ju
ne2014
Aranyosi an
d Că
ldăraru
C-
404
15 a
nd C
-659
15
5 Ap
ril2016
ECtH
R K
arim
v Sw
eden
no
24171054 Ju
ly
2006
ECtH
R K
ochi
eva
and
Oth
ers v
Swed
en (d
ec)
no 752031230 Ap
ril
2013
22 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
63
lsquo63
As r
egar
ds th
e fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts t
hat a
re c
onfe
rred
on
them
in
addi
tion
to th
e co
dific
atio
n in
Artic
le3(2)o
fthe
Dub
linIIIR
egulationofthe
case-lawarisingfrom
thejudg
men
tof2
1 De
cembe
r20
11 N
S a
nd O
ther
s (C-
411
10 a
nd C
-493
10
EU
C2
011
865)
ref
erre
d to
in p
arag
raph
60
of th
e pr
esen
t jud
gmen
t th
e EU
legi
slatu
re st
ress
ed i
n re
cita
ls 32
and
39
of th
at re
gula
tion
that
the
Mem
ber
Stat
es a
re b
ound
in
the
appl
icat
ion
of th
at re
gula
tion
by
the
case
-law
of t
he E
urop
ean
Cour
t of H
uman
Ri
ghts
and
by
Artic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
errsquo
Para
65
lsquo65
It fo
llow
s fro
m a
ll of
the
prec
edin
g co
nsid
erat
ions
that
the
tran
sfer
of a
n as
ylum
seek
er w
ithin
the
fram
ewor
k of
the
Dubl
in II
I Reg
ulat
ion
can
take
pla
ce o
nly
in c
ondi
tions
whi
ch p
recl
ude
that
tran
sfer
from
re
sulti
ng in
a re
al ri
sk o
f the
per
son
conc
erne
d su
fferin
g in
hum
an o
r deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent
with
in th
e m
eani
ng o
f Art
icle
4 o
f the
Cha
rter
rsquo
Para
70
lsquo70
In
that
rega
rd i
t mus
t be
stat
ed a
s reg
ards
the
rece
ptio
n co
nditi
ons a
nd th
e ca
re a
vaila
ble
in th
e M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
tha
t the
Mem
ber S
tate
s bou
nd b
y th
e lsquore
cept
ionrsquo
dire
ctiv
e in
clud
ing
the
Repu
blic
of C
roat
ia a
re re
quire
d in
clud
ing
in th
e co
ntex
t of t
he p
roce
dure
und
er th
e Du
blin
III R
egul
atio
n
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith A
rtic
les 1
7 to
19
of th
at d
irect
ive
to p
rovi
de a
sylu
m se
eker
s with
the
nece
ssar
y he
alth
ca
re a
nd m
edic
al a
ssist
ance
incl
udin
g a
t lea
st e
mer
genc
y ca
re a
nd e
ssen
tial t
reat
men
t of i
llnes
ses a
nd o
f se
rious
men
tal d
isord
ers
In th
ose
circ
umst
ance
s a
nd in
acc
orda
nce
with
the
mut
ual c
onfid
ence
bet
wee
n M
embe
r Sta
tes
ther
e is
a st
rong
pre
sum
ptio
n th
at th
e m
edic
al tr
eatm
ents
offe
red
to a
sylu
m se
eker
s in
the
Mem
ber S
tate
s will
be
adeq
uate
rsquo
Para
73
lsquo73
That
said
it c
anno
t be
rule
d ou
t tha
t the
tran
sfer
of a
n as
ylum
seek
er w
hose
stat
e of
hea
lth is
pa
rtic
ular
ly se
rious
may
in
itsel
f re
sult
for t
he p
erso
n co
ncer
ned
in a
real
risk
of i
nhum
an o
r deg
radi
ng
trea
tmen
t with
in th
e m
eani
ng o
f Art
icle
4 o
f the
Cha
rter
irr
espe
ctiv
e of
the
qual
ity o
f the
rece
ptio
n an
d th
e ca
re a
vaila
ble
in th
e M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
for e
xam
inin
g hi
s app
licat
ion
rsquo
ECtH
R D
raga
n an
d O
ther
s v G
erm
any
(dec
) no
33743037 Octob
er
2004
Hala
fC-5281130 May
2013
Abdu
llahi
C-3
941
2
10 Decem
ber2
013
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 23
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
s 7
5-77
lsquo75
Con
sequ
ently
whe
re a
n as
ylum
seek
er p
rovi
des
par
ticul
arly
in th
e co
ntex
t of a
n ef
fect
ive
rem
edy
guar
ante
ed to
him
by
Artic
le 2
7 of
the
Dubl
in II
I Reg
ulat
ion
obj
ectiv
e ev
iden
ce s
uch
as m
edic
al
cert
ifica
tes c
once
rnin
g hi
s per
son
cap
able
of s
how
ing
the
part
icul
ar se
rious
ness
of h
is st
ate
of h
ealth
an
d th
e sig
nific
ant a
nd ir
reve
rsib
le c
onse
quen
ces t
o w
hich
his
tran
sfer
mig
ht le
ad t
he a
utho
ritie
s of t
he
Mem
ber S
tate
con
cern
ed i
nclu
ding
its c
ourt
s c
anno
t ign
ore
that
evi
denc
e T
hey
are
on
the
cont
rary
un
der a
n ob
ligat
ion
to a
sses
s the
risk
that
such
con
sequ
ence
s cou
ld o
ccur
whe
n th
ey d
ecid
e to
tran
sfer
th
e pe
rson
con
cern
ed o
r in
the
case
of a
cou
rt t
he le
galit
y of
a d
ecisi
on to
tran
sfer
sin
ce th
e ex
ecut
ion
of
that
dec
ision
may
lead
to in
hum
an o
r deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent o
f tha
t per
son
lsquo76
It is
the
refo
re f
or th
ose
auth
oriti
es to
elim
inat
e an
y se
rious
dou
bts c
once
rnin
g th
e im
pact
of
the
tran
sfer
on
the
stat
e of
hea
lth o
f the
per
son
conc
erne
d In
this
rega
rd i
n pa
rtic
ular
in th
e ca
se o
f a
serio
us p
sych
iatr
ic il
lnes
s it
is n
ot su
ffici
ent t
o co
nsid
er o
nly
the
cons
eque
nces
of p
hysic
ally
tran
spor
ting
the
pers
on c
once
rned
from
one
Mem
ber S
tate
to a
noth
er b
ut a
ll th
e sig
nific
ant a
nd p
erm
anen
t co
nseq
uenc
es th
at m
ight
aris
e fr
om th
e tr
ansf
er m
ust b
e ta
ken
into
con
sider
atio
n
lsquo77
In th
at c
onte
xt t
he a
utho
ritie
s of t
he M
embe
r Sta
tes c
once
rned
mus
t ver
ify w
heth
er th
e st
ate
of
heal
th o
f the
per
son
at is
sue
may
be
prot
ecte
d ap
prop
riate
ly a
nd su
ffici
ently
by
taki
ng th
e pr
ecau
tions
en
visa
ged
by th
e Du
blin
III R
egul
atio
n an
d in
the
affir
mat
ive
mus
t im
plem
ent t
hose
pre
caut
ions
rsquo
Para
s 8
1-90
lsquo81
In th
is re
gard
the
Mem
ber S
tate
car
ryin
g ou
t the
tran
sfer
mus
t be
able
to o
rgan
ise it
in su
ch a
way
th
at th
e as
ylum
seek
er c
once
rned
is a
ccom
pani
ed d
urin
g tr
ansp
orta
tion
by
adeq
uate
med
ical
staf
f with
th
e ne
cess
ary
equi
pmen
t re
sour
ces a
nd m
edic
atio
n so
as t
o pr
even
t any
wor
seni
ng o
f his
heal
th o
r any
ac
t of v
iole
nce
by h
im to
war
ds h
imse
lf or
oth
er p
erso
ns
lsquo82
Tha
t Mem
ber S
tate
mus
t also
be
able
to e
nsur
e th
at th
e as
ylum
seek
er c
once
rned
rece
ives
car
e up
on
his a
rriv
al in
the
Mem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
le I
n th
at re
spec
t it
mus
t be
reca
lled
that
Art
icle
s 31
and
32
of th
e Du
blin
III R
egul
atio
n re
quire
the
Mem
ber S
tate
car
ryin
g ou
t the
tran
sfer
to c
omm
unic
ate
to th
e M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
such
info
rmat
ion
conc
erni
ng th
e st
ate
of h
ealth
of t
he a
sylu
m se
eker
as t
o al
low
that
Mem
ber S
tate
to p
rovi
de h
im w
ith th
e im
med
iate
hea
lth c
are
requ
ired
in o
rder
to p
rote
ct h
is vi
tal i
nter
ests
24 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo83
The
stan
dard
form
set o
ut in
Ann
ex V
I to
the
impl
emen
ting
regu
latio
n an
d th
e co
mm
on h
ealth
ce
rtifi
cate
foun
d in
Ann
ex IX
to th
at re
gula
tion
may
thus
be
used
to in
form
the
Mem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
le
that
the
asyl
um se
eker
con
cern
ed re
quire
s med
ical
ass
istan
ce a
nd c
are
upon
his
arriv
al a
s wel
l as a
ll th
e re
leva
nt a
spec
ts o
f his
illne
ss a
nd th
e ca
re w
hich
that
illn
ess w
ill m
ake
nece
ssar
y in
the
futu
re I
n th
at
case
tha
t inf
orm
atio
n m
ust b
e co
mm
unic
ated
with
in a
reas
onab
le p
erio
d of
tim
e be
fore
the
tran
sfer
is
carr
ied
out
in o
rder
to p
rovi
de th
e M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
with
suffi
cien
t tim
e to
take
the
nece
ssar
y m
easu
res
The
Mem
ber S
tate
car
ryin
g ou
t the
tran
sfer
may
in
addi
tion
obt
ain
from
the
Mem
ber S
tate
re
spon
sible
the
conf
irmat
ion
that
the
nece
ssar
y ca
re w
ill b
e fu
lly a
vaila
ble
upon
arr
ival
lsquo84
If t
he c
ourt
hav
ing
juris
dict
ion
finds
that
thos
e pr
ecau
tions
are
suffi
cien
t to
excl
ude
any
real
risk
of
inhu
man
or d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t in
the
even
t of t
rans
ferr
ing
the
asyl
um se
eker
con
cern
ed i
t will
be
for
that
cou
rt to
take
the
nece
ssar
y m
easu
res t
o en
sure
that
they
are
impl
emen
ted
by th
e au
thor
ities
of t
he
requ
estin
g M
embe
r Sta
te b
efor
e th
e pe
rson
con
cern
ed is
tran
sfer
red
Whe
re n
eces
sary
tha
t per
sonrsquo
s st
ate
of h
ealth
shou
ld b
e re
asse
ssed
bef
ore
the
tran
sfer
is c
arrie
d ou
t
lsquo85
On
the
othe
r han
d if
the
taki
ng o
f tho
se p
reca
utio
ns is
reg
ard
bein
g ha
d to
the
part
icul
ar se
rious
ness
of
the
illne
ss o
f the
asy
lum
seek
er c
once
rned
not
suffi
cien
t to
ensu
re th
at h
is tr
ansf
er w
ill n
ot re
sult
in
a re
al ri
sk o
f a si
gnifi
cant
and
per
man
ent w
orse
ning
of h
is st
ate
of h
ealth
it i
s for
the
auth
oriti
es o
f the
M
embe
r Sta
te c
once
rned
to su
spen
d th
e ex
ecut
ion
of th
at p
erso
nrsquos t
rans
fer f
or su
ch ti
me
as h
is st
ate
of
heal
th re
nder
s him
unf
it fo
r suc
h a
tran
sfer
lsquo86
In
that
rega
rd i
t mus
t be
reca
lled
that
in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith A
rtic
le 2
9(1)
of t
he D
ublin
III R
egul
atio
n
the
tran
sfer
of t
he a
pplic
ant f
rom
the
requ
estin
g M
embe
r Sta
te to
the
Mem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
le is
to b
e ca
rrie
d ou
t as s
oon
as lsquop
ract
ical
ly p
ossib
lersquo
As is
app
aren
t fro
m A
rtic
le 9
of t
he im
plem
entin
g re
gula
tion
th
e ill
hea
lth o
f the
asy
lum
seek
er is
spec
ifica
lly re
gard
ed a
s a lsquop
hysic
al re
ason
rsquo cap
able
of j
ustif
ying
po
stpo
nem
ent o
f the
tran
sfer
lsquo87
If th
e st
ate
of h
ealth
of t
he a
sylu
m se
eker
con
cern
ed d
oes n
ot p
erm
it hi
s tra
nsfe
r it
is th
en fo
r the
re
ques
ting
Mem
ber S
tate
in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith th
at p
rovi
sion
to in
form
the
Mem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
le
with
out d
elay
of t
he p
ostp
onem
ent o
f the
tran
sfer
due
to th
e co
nditi
on o
f tha
t asy
lum
seek
er
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 25
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo88
Whe
re n
eces
sary
if i
t is n
oted
that
the
stat
e of
hea
lth o
f the
asy
lum
seek
er c
once
rned
is n
ot
expe
cted
to im
prov
e in
the
shor
t ter
m o
r tha
t the
susp
ensio
n of
the
proc
edur
e fo
r a lo
ng p
erio
d w
ould
ris
k w
orse
ning
the
cond
ition
of t
he p
erso
n co
ncer
ned
the
requ
estin
g M
embe
r Sta
te m
ay c
hoos
e to
co
nduc
t its
ow
n ex
amin
atio
n of
his
appl
icat
ion
by m
akin
g us
e of
the
lsquodisc
retio
nary
cla
usersquo
laid
dow
n in
Artic
le17(1)ofthe
Dub
linIIIR
egulation(see
tothateffe
ctjud
gmen
tof3
0 May201
3H
alaf
C-5
281
1
EUC
201
334
2 p
arag
raph
38)
The
fact
nev
erth
eles
s rem
ains
that
that
pro
visio
n re
ad in
the
light
of
Artic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
er c
anno
t be
inte
rpre
ted
in a
situ
atio
n su
ch a
s tha
t at i
ssue
in th
e m
ain
proc
eedi
ngs
as
mea
ning
that
it im
plie
s an
oblig
atio
n on
that
Mem
ber S
tate
to m
ake
use
of it
in th
at w
ay
lsquo89
In
any
even
t if
the
stat
e of
hea
lth o
f the
asy
lum
seek
er c
once
rned
doe
s not
ena
ble
the
requ
estin
g M
embe
r Sta
te to
car
ry o
ut th
e tr
ansf
er b
efor
e th
e ex
piry
of t
he si
x-m
onth
per
iod
prov
ided
for i
n Ar
ticle
29(
1) o
f the
Dub
lin II
I Reg
ulat
ion
the
Mem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
le w
ould
be
relie
ved
of it
s obl
igat
ion
to ta
ke c
harg
e of
the
pers
on c
once
rned
and
resp
onsib
ility
wou
ld th
en b
e tr
ansf
erre
d to
the
first
Mem
ber
Stat
e in
acc
orda
nce
with
par
agra
ph 2
of t
hat a
rtic
le
lsquo90
It is
for t
he re
ferr
ing
cour
t to
dete
rmin
e in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s w
heth
er th
e st
ate
of h
ealth
of
C K
is o
f suc
h se
rious
ness
that
ther
e ar
e su
bsta
ntia
l gro
unds
for b
elie
ving
that
her
tran
sfer
wou
ld re
sult
for h
er in
a re
al ri
sk o
f inh
uman
or d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
er
In th
e af
firm
ativ
e it
will
be
for t
he re
ferr
ing
cour
t to
elim
inat
e th
ose
grou
nds b
y en
surin
g th
at th
e pr
ecau
tions
refe
rred
to in
par
agra
phs 8
1 to
83
of th
e pr
esen
t jud
gmen
t are
take
n be
fore
the
tran
sfer
of
C K
or
if ne
cess
ary
that
the
tran
sfer
of t
hat p
erso
n is
susp
ende
d un
til h
er st
ate
of h
ealth
per
mits
itrsquo
Para
98
lsquo98
Sin
ce th
ese
proc
eedi
ngs a
re f
or th
e pa
rtie
s to
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s a
step
in th
e ac
tion
pend
ing
befo
re th
e re
ferr
ing
cour
t th
e de
cisio
n on
cos
ts is
a m
atte
r for
that
cou
rt C
osts
incu
rred
in su
bmitt
ing
obse
rvat
ions
to th
e Co
urt
othe
r tha
n th
e co
sts o
f tho
se p
artie
s a
re n
ot re
cove
rabl
ersquo
26 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
Mou
ssa
Sack
o v
Com
mis
sion
e Te
rrito
riale
per
il
ricon
osci
men
to
della
pro
tezi
one
inte
rnaz
iona
le d
i Mila
no
C-34
816
EUC
201
759
1
260
720
17
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
s 12
14
31
and
46ofD
irective20
1332EU
ofthe
Europ
eanParliam
enta
ndofthe
Cou
ncilof26 June
201
3on
com
mon
pr
oced
ures
for g
rant
ing
and
with
draw
ing
inte
rnat
iona
l pro
tect
ion
Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
2EU
mdash A
rtic
les 1
2 1
4 3
1 an
d 46
mdash C
hart
er o
f Fun
dam
enta
l Rig
hts o
f the
Eur
opea
n U
nion
mdash A
rtic
le 4
7 mdash
Rig
ht to
effe
ctiv
e ju
dici
al p
rote
ctio
n mdash
App
eal a
gain
st a
dec
ision
refu
sing
an
appl
icat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n mdash
Whe
ther
it is
pos
sible
for t
he c
ourt
to a
djud
icat
e w
ithou
t he
arin
g th
e ap
plic
ant
Para
s 3
1-49
lsquo31
It fo
llow
s tha
t the
cha
ract
erist
ics o
f the
rem
edy
prov
ided
for i
n Ar
ticle
46
of D
irect
ive
2013
32
mus
t be
dete
rmin
ed in
a m
anne
r tha
t is c
onsis
tent
with
Art
icle
47
of th
e Ch
arte
r w
hich
con
stitu
tes
a re
affir
mat
ion
of th
e pr
inci
ple
of e
ffect
ive
judi
cial
pro
tect
ion
(see
by
anal
ogy
with
refe
renc
e to
Art
icle
39
ofCou
ncilDirective20
0585EC
of1
Decem
ber2
005on
minim
umstan
dardso
nproced
uresin
Mem
ber
Stat
es fo
r gra
ntin
g an
d w
ithdr
awin
g re
fuge
e st
atus
lsquo32
The
prin
cipl
e of
effe
ctiv
e ju
dici
al p
rote
ctio
n of
the
right
s whi
ch in
divi
dual
s der
ive
from
EU
law
co
mpr
ises v
ario
us e
lem
ents
in
part
icul
ar t
he ri
ghts
of t
he d
efen
ce t
he p
rinci
ple
of e
qual
ity o
f arm
s th
e rig
ht o
f acc
ess t
o a
trib
unal
and
the
right
to b
e ad
vise
d d
efen
ded
and
repr
esen
ted
lsquo33
With
rega
rd f
irst
to th
e pr
ocee
ding
s at f
irst i
nsta
nce
cove
red
by C
hapt
er II
I of D
irect
ive
2013
32
it
shou
ld b
e re
calle
d th
at w
hen
the
auth
oriti
es o
f the
Mem
ber S
tate
s tak
e m
easu
res w
hich
com
e w
ithin
th
e sc
ope
of E
U la
w th
ey a
re a
s a ru
le s
ubje
ct to
the
oblig
atio
n to
obs
erve
the
right
s of d
efen
ce o
f ad
dres
sees
of d
ecisi
ons w
hich
sign
ifica
ntly
affe
ct th
eir i
nter
ests
lsquo34
In
part
icul
ar t
he C
ourt
has
hel
d th
at th
e rig
ht to
be
hear
d in
any
pro
cedu
re i
nher
ent i
n re
spec
t for
th
e rig
hts o
f the
def
ence
whi
ch is
a g
ener
al p
rinci
ple
of E
U la
w g
uara
ntee
s eve
ry p
erso
n th
e op
port
unity
to
mak
e kn
own
his v
iew
s effe
ctiv
ely
durin
g an
adm
inist
rativ
e pr
oced
ure
and
befo
re th
e ad
optio
n of
any
de
cisio
n lia
ble
to a
ffect
his
inte
rest
s adv
erse
ly
lsquo35
In th
at re
gard
the
pur
pose
of t
he ru
le th
at th
e ad
dres
see
of a
n ad
vers
e de
cisio
n m
ust b
e pl
aced
in
a po
sitio
n to
subm
it hi
s obs
erva
tions
bef
ore
that
dec
ision
is a
dopt
ed is
int
er a
lia t
o en
able
that
per
son
to
corr
ect a
n er
ror o
r sub
mit
such
info
rmat
ion
rela
ting
to h
is or
her
per
sona
l circ
umst
ance
s as w
ill a
rgue
in
favo
ur o
f the
ado
ptio
n or
non
-ado
ptio
n of
the
deci
sion
or i
n fa
vour
of i
ts h
avin
g a
spec
ific
cont
ent
Leso
ochr
anaacuter
ske
zosk
upen
ie V
LK
C-243158 Novem
ber
2016
MC-560149 Fe
bruary
2017
Berli
oz In
vest
men
t Fun
d
C-6821516 May2017
Tall
C-2
391
4
17 Decem
ber2
015
Otis
and
Oth
ers
C-199116 Novem
ber
2012
G an
d R
C-3
831
3
10 Sep
tembe
r2013
Boud
jlida
C-2
491
3
11 Decem
ber2
014
Muk
arub
ega
C-1
661
3
5 No
vembe
r2014
Sam
ba D
iouf
C-6
910
28 Ju
ly2011
Lebe
kC-70157 Ju
ly
2016
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 27
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo36
With
rega
rd o
n th
e ot
her h
and
to th
e ap
peal
s pro
cedu
res c
over
ed b
y Ch
apte
r V o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
2 in
ord
er fo
r the
righ
t to
a re
med
y to
be
exer
cise
d ef
fect
ivel
y th
e na
tiona
l cou
rt m
ust b
e ab
le
to re
view
the
mer
its o
f the
reas
ons w
hich
led
the
com
pete
nt a
dmin
istra
tive
auth
ority
to fi
nd th
at th
e ap
plic
atio
n fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
was
unf
ound
ed o
r mad
e in
bad
faith
lsquo37
In th
is in
stan
ce i
t sho
uld
be n
oted
that
failu
re to
giv
e th
e ap
plic
ant t
he o
ppor
tuni
ty to
be
hear
d in
an
app
eals
proc
edur
e su
ch a
s tha
t cov
ered
by
Chap
ter V
of D
irect
ive
2013
32
cons
titut
es a
rest
rictio
n of
the
right
s of t
he d
efen
ce w
hich
form
par
t of t
he p
rinci
ple
of e
ffect
ive
judi
cial
pro
tect
ion
ensh
rined
in
Artic
le 4
7 of
the
Char
ter
lsquo38
How
ever
acc
ordi
ng to
the
Cour
trsquos se
ttle
d ca
se-la
w fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts
such
as r
espe
ct fo
r the
rig
hts o
f the
def
ence
whi
ch in
clud
es th
e rig
ht to
be
hear
d d
o no
t con
stitu
te u
nfet
tere
d pr
erog
ativ
es
and
may
be
rest
ricte
d p
rovi
ded
that
the
rest
rictio
ns in
fact
cor
resp
ond
to o
bjec
tives
of g
ener
al in
tere
st
purs
ued
by th
e m
easu
re in
que
stio
n an
d th
at th
ey d
o no
t ent
ail
with
rega
rd to
the
obje
ctiv
es p
ursu
ed
a di
spro
port
iona
te a
nd in
tole
rabl
e in
terfe
renc
e w
hich
infr
inge
s upo
n th
e ve
ry su
bsta
nce
of th
e rig
hts
guar
ante
ed
lsquo39
An
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
the
right
to b
e he
ard
gua
rant
eed
by A
rtic
le 4
7 of
the
Char
ter
to th
e ef
fect
that
it
is no
t an
abso
lute
righ
t is c
onfir
med
by
the
case
-law
of t
he E
urop
ean
Cour
t of H
uman
Rig
hts
in th
e lig
ht
of w
hich
Art
icle
47
of th
e Ch
arte
r mus
t be
inte
rpre
ted
as t
he fi
rst a
nd se
cond
par
agra
phs o
f tha
t art
icle
co
rres
pond
to A
rtic
le 6
(1) a
nd A
rtic
le 1
3 of
the
Euro
pean
Con
vent
ion
for t
he P
rote
ctio
n of
Hum
an R
ight
s an
dFu
ndam
entalFreed
omss
igne
dinRom
eon
4 Novem
ber1
950
lsquo40
In
that
rega
rd t
he C
ourt
has
pre
viou
sly st
ated
that
Art
icle
6(1
) of t
hat c
onve
ntio
n do
es n
ot im
pose
an
abso
lute
obl
igat
ion
to h
old
a pu
blic
hea
ring
and
does
not
nec
essa
rily
requ
ire th
at a
hea
ring
be h
eld
in a
ll pr
ocee
ding
s It
has
hel
d si
mila
rly t
hat n
eith
er th
e se
cond
par
agra
ph o
f Art
icle
47
of th
e Ch
arte
r nor
any
ot
her p
rovi
sion
ther
eof i
mpo
ses s
uch
an o
blig
atio
n
lsquo41
Fur
ther
mor
e th
e Co
urt h
as a
lso h
eld
that
the
ques
tion
whe
ther
ther
e is
an in
frin
gem
ent o
f the
righ
ts
of th
e de
fenc
e an
d th
e rig
ht to
effe
ctiv
e ju
dici
al p
rote
ctio
n m
ust b
e ex
amin
ed in
rela
tion
to th
e sp
ecifi
c ci
rcum
stan
ces o
f eac
h ca
se i
nclu
ding
the
natu
re o
f the
act
at i
ssue
the
con
text
in w
hich
it w
as a
dopt
ed
and
the
lega
l rul
es g
over
ning
the
mat
ter i
n qu
estio
n
Tom
a an
d Bi
roul
Ex
ecut
orul
ui
Judecătoresc Horațiu-
Vasil
e Cr
udul
eci
C-2051530 June
2016
Ande
chse
r Mol
kere
i Sc
heitz
v C
omm
issio
n
C-68
213
P n
ot
publish
ed4 Ju
ne2015
(in F
renc
h)
ECtH
R Ju
ssila
v
Finl
andno 7305301
23 Novem
ber2
006
Com
miss
ion
and
Oth
ers
v Ka
di C
-584
10
P C-
593
10 P
and
C-59510P18 July2013
ECtH
R D
oumlry
v Sw
eden
no
2839495
12 Novem
ber2
002
28 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo42
In th
is in
stan
ce t
he o
blig
atio
n im
pose
d in
Art
icle
46(
3) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
2 on
the
cour
t with
ju
risdi
ctio
n to
ens
ure
that
a fu
ll an
d ex
nun
c ex
amin
atio
n of
bot
h fa
cts a
nd p
oint
s of l
aw is
con
duct
ed
mus
t be
inte
rpre
ted
in th
e co
ntex
t of t
he p
roce
dure
for t
he e
xam
inat
ion
of a
pplic
atio
ns fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pr
otec
tion
as a
who
le a
s gov
erne
d by
that
dire
ctiv
e ta
king
into
acc
ount
the
clos
e lin
k be
twee
n ap
peal
pr
ocee
ding
s bef
ore
a co
urt o
r trib
unal
and
the
proc
eedi
ngs a
t firs
t ins
tanc
e pr
eced
ing
thos
e pr
ocee
ding
s
durin
g w
hich
the
appl
ican
t mus
t be
give
n th
e op
port
unity
of a
per
sona
l int
ervi
ew o
n hi
s or h
er a
pplic
atio
n fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
as r
equi
red
by A
rtic
le 1
4 of
the
dire
ctiv
e
lsquo43
It sh
ould
be
note
d in
that
rega
rd th
at a
s the
repo
rt o
r tra
nscr
ipt o
f any
per
sona
l int
ervi
ew w
ith a
n ap
plic
ant m
ust
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith A
rtic
le 1
7(2)
of D
irect
ive
2013
32
be
avai
labl
e in
con
nect
ion
with
the
appl
ican
trsquos fi
le t
he c
onte
nt o
f the
repo
rt o
r tra
nscr
ipt i
s an
impo
rtan
t fac
tor i
n th
e as
sess
men
t by
the
cour
t with
juris
dict
ion
whe
n it
carr
ies o
ut th
e fu
ll an
d ex
nun
c ex
amin
atio
n of
bot
h fa
cts a
nd p
oint
s of l
aw
requ
ired
unde
r Art
icle
46(
3) o
f the
dire
ctiv
e
lsquo44
It fo
llow
s a
s the
Adv
ocat
e Ge
nera
l obs
erve
d in
poi
nts 5
8 5
9 an
d 65
to 6
7 of
his
Opi
nion
tha
t w
heth
er it
is n
eces
sary
for t
he c
ourt
or t
ribun
al h
earin
g th
e ap
peal
pro
vide
d fo
r in
Artic
le 4
6 of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
2 to
gra
nt th
e ap
plic
ant a
hea
ring
has t
o be
ass
esse
d in
the
light
of i
ts o
blig
atio
n to
car
ry o
ut th
e fu
ll an
d ex
nun
c ex
amin
atio
n re
quire
d un
der A
rtic
le 4
6(3)
of t
he d
irect
ive
in th
e in
tere
sts o
f effe
ctiv
e ju
dici
al p
rote
ctio
n of
the
right
s and
inte
rest
s of t
he a
pplic
ant
It is
only
if th
at c
ourt
or t
ribun
al c
onsid
ers
that
it is
in a
pos
ition
to c
arry
out
such
an
exam
inat
ion
sole
ly o
n th
e ba
sis o
f the
info
rmat
ion
in th
e ca
se-
file
incl
udin
g w
here
app
licab
le t
he re
port
or t
rans
crip
t of t
he p
erso
nal i
nter
view
with
the
appl
ican
t in
the
proc
edur
e at
firs
t ins
tanc
e th
at it
may
dec
ide
not t
o he
ar th
e ap
plic
ant i
n th
e ap
peal
bef
ore
it In
such
ci
rcum
stan
ces
the
poss
ibili
ty o
f not
hol
ding
a h
earin
g is
in th
e in
tere
st o
f bot
h th
e M
embe
r Sta
tes a
nd
appl
ican
ts a
s ref
erre
d to
in re
cita
l 18
of D
irect
ive
2013
32
to h
ave
a de
cisio
n m
ade
as so
on a
s pos
sible
on
app
licat
ions
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n w
ithou
t pre
judi
ce to
an
adeq
uate
and
com
plet
e ex
amin
atio
n be
ing
carr
ied
out
lsquo45
On
the
othe
r han
d if
the
cour
t or t
ribun
al h
earin
g th
e ap
peal
con
sider
s tha
t the
app
lican
t mus
t be
affo
rded
a h
earin
g in
ord
er to
car
ry o
ut th
e fu
ll an
d ex
nun
c ex
amin
atio
n re
quire
d th
at h
earin
g a
s or
dere
d by
that
cou
rt o
r trib
unal
con
stitu
tes a
n es
sent
ial p
roce
dura
l req
uire
men
t w
hich
can
not b
e di
spen
sed
with
on
grou
nds o
f spe
ed a
s ref
erre
d to
in re
cita
l 20
of D
irect
ive
2013
32
As t
he A
dvoc
ate
Gene
ral o
bser
ved
in p
oint
67
of h
is O
pini
on a
lthou
gh th
at re
cita
l allo
ws M
embe
r Sta
tes t
o ac
cele
rate
the
exam
inat
ion
proc
edur
e in
cer
tain
cas
es i
nter
alia
whe
re a
n ap
plic
atio
n is
likel
y to
be
unfo
unde
d it
doe
s no
t aut
horis
e th
e el
imin
atio
n of
pro
cedu
res w
hich
are
ess
entia
l in
orde
r to
guar
ante
e th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
righ
t to
effe
ctiv
e ju
dici
al p
rote
ctio
n
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 29
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo46
In th
e ca
se o
f a m
anife
stly
unf
ound
ed a
pplic
atio
n w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 3
2(2)
of D
irect
ive
2013
32
such
as t
he a
pplic
atio
n in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s th
e ob
ligat
ion
for t
he c
ourt
or t
ribun
al to
ca
rry
out t
he fu
ll an
d ex
nun
c ex
amin
atio
n re
ferr
ed to
in A
rtic
le 4
6(3)
of t
he d
irect
ive
is in
prin
cipl
e
fulfi
lled
whe
re th
at c
ourt
or t
ribun
al ta
kes i
nto
cons
ider
atio
n th
e pl
eadi
ngs s
ubm
itted
to th
e co
urt o
r tr
ibun
al se
ised
of th
e ap
plic
atio
n an
d of
the
obje
ctiv
e in
form
atio
n co
ntai
ned
in th
e ad
min
istra
tive
file
in th
e pr
ocee
ding
s at f
irst i
nsta
nce
incl
udin
g w
here
app
licab
le t
he re
port
or r
ecor
ding
of t
he p
erso
nal
inte
rvie
w c
ondu
cted
in th
ose
proc
eedi
ngs
lsquo47
Tha
t con
clus
ion
is su
ppor
ted
by th
e ca
se-la
w o
f the
Eur
opea
n Co
urt o
f Hum
an R
ight
s to
the
effe
ct
that
ther
e is
no n
eed
for a
hea
ring
whe
re th
e ca
se d
oes n
ot ra
ise a
ny q
uest
ions
of f
act o
r law
that
can
not
be a
dequ
atel
y re
solv
ed b
y re
ferr
ing
to th
e fil
e an
d th
e w
ritte
n su
bmiss
ions
of t
he p
artie
s
lsquo48
Mor
eove
r w
hile
Art
icle
46
of D
irect
ive
2013
32
does
not
requ
ire a
cou
rt o
r trib
unal
hea
ring
an
appe
al a
gain
st a
dec
ision
reje
ctin
g an
app
licat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n to
hea
r the
app
lican
t in
all c
ircum
stan
ces
it d
oes n
ot n
onet
hele
ss a
utho
rise
the
natio
nal l
egisl
atur
e to
pre
vent
that
cou
rt o
r tr
ibun
al o
rder
ing
that
a h
earin
g be
hel
d w
here
hav
ing
foun
d th
at th
e in
form
atio
n ga
ther
ed d
urin
g th
e pe
rson
al in
terv
iew
con
duct
ed in
the
proc
edur
e at
firs
t ins
tanc
e is
insu
ffici
ent
it co
nsid
ers i
t nec
essa
ry to
co
nduc
t a h
earin
g to
ens
ure
that
ther
e is
a fu
ll an
d ex
nun
c ex
amin
atio
n of
bot
h fa
cts a
nd p
oint
s of l
aw a
s re
quire
d un
der A
rtic
le 4
6(3)
of t
he d
irect
ive
lsquo49
In th
e lig
ht o
f the
fore
goin
g co
nsid
erat
ions
Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
2 in
par
ticul
ar A
rtic
les 1
2 1
4 3
1 an
d 46
th
ereo
f re
ad in
the
light
of A
rtic
le 4
7 of
the
Char
ter
mus
t be
inte
rpre
ted
as n
ot p
recl
udin
g th
e na
tiona
l co
urt o
r trib
unal
hea
ring
an a
ppea
l aga
inst
a d
ecisi
on re
ject
ing
a m
anife
stly
unf
ound
ed a
pplic
atio
n fo
r in
tern
atio
nal p
rote
ctio
n fr
om d
ismiss
ing
the
appe
al w
ithou
t hea
ring
the
appl
ican
t whe
re th
e fa
ctua
l ci
rcum
stan
ces l
eave
no
doub
t as t
o w
heth
er th
at d
ecisi
on w
as w
ell f
ound
ed o
n co
nditi
on th
at f
irst
durin
g th
e pr
ocee
ding
s at f
irst i
nsta
nce
the
appl
ican
t was
giv
en th
e op
port
unity
of a
per
sona
l int
ervi
ew
on h
is or
her
app
licat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n in
acc
orda
nce
with
Art
icle
14
of th
e di
rect
ive
and
th
e re
port
or t
rans
crip
t of t
he in
terv
iew
if a
n in
terv
iew
was
con
duct
ed w
as p
lace
d on
the
case
-file
in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith A
rtic
le 1
7(2)
of t
he d
irect
ive
and
sec
ond
the
cour
t hea
ring
the
appe
al m
ay o
rder
that
a
hear
ing
be c
ondu
cted
if it
con
sider
s it n
eces
sary
for t
he p
urpo
se o
f ens
urin
g th
at th
ere
is a
full
and
ex
nunc
exa
min
atio
n of
bot
h fa
cts a
nd p
oint
s of l
aw a
s req
uire
d un
der A
rtic
le 4
6(3)
of t
he d
irect
ive
rsquo
30 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
F v
Bevaacute
ndor
laacutesi
eacutes
Aacutella
mpo
lgaacuter
saacutegi
Hiv
atal
C-47
316
EUC
201
836
250
120
18
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ns th
e in
terp
reta
tion
of A
rtic
le 1
of t
he C
hart
er
of F
unda
men
tal R
ight
s of t
he E
urop
ean
Uni
on a
nd A
rtic
le 4
of D
irect
ive
2011
95
EU o
f the
Eur
opea
n Parliam
enta
ndofthe
Cou
ncilof13 De
cembe
r201
1on
stan
dardsforth
equ
alificatio
nofth
ird-cou
ntry
natio
nals
or st
atel
ess p
erso
ns a
s ben
efic
iarie
s of i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n fo
r a u
nifo
rm st
atus
for r
efug
ees
or fo
r per
sons
elig
ible
for s
ubsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
and
for t
he c
onte
nt o
f the
pro
tect
ion
gran
ted
Char
ter o
f Fun
dam
enta
l Rig
hts o
f the
Eur
opea
n U
nion
mdash A
rtic
le 7
mdash R
espe
ct fo
r priv
ate
and
fam
ily li
fe mdash
Di
rect
ive
2011
95
EU mdash
Sta
ndar
ds fo
r gra
ntin
g re
fuge
e st
atus
or s
ubsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
stat
us mdash
Fea
r of
pers
ecut
ion
on g
roun
ds o
f sex
ual o
rient
atio
n mdash
Art
icle
4 mdash
Ass
essm
ent o
f fac
ts a
nd c
ircum
stan
ces mdash
Re
cour
se to
an
expe
rtrsquos
repo
rt mdash
Psy
chol
ogic
al te
sts
Para
22
lsquo22Byde
cisio
nof1 Octob
er201
5th
eOfficere
jected
Frsquosap
plicationfora
sylumInthatre
gardalth
ough
it
cons
ider
ed th
at F
rsquos st
atem
ents
wer
e no
t fun
dam
enta
lly c
ontr
adic
tory
it n
onet
hele
ss c
oncl
uded
that
F
lack
ed c
redi
bilit
y on
the
basis
of a
n ex
pert
rsquos re
port
pre
pare
d by
a p
sych
olog
ist T
hat e
xper
trsquos re
port
en
taile
d an
exp
lora
tory
exa
min
atio
n a
n ex
amin
atio
n of
per
sona
lity
and
seve
ral p
erso
nalit
y te
sts
nam
ely
the
lsquoDra
w-A
-Per
son-
In-T
he-R
ainrsquo
test
and
the
Rors
chac
h an
d Sz
ondi
test
s a
nd c
oncl
uded
that
it w
as n
ot
poss
ible
to c
onfir
m F
rsquos as
sert
ion
rela
ting
to h
is se
xual
orie
ntat
ion
rsquo
Para
33
lsquo33
Tha
t sai
d it
mus
t be
note
d th
at A
rtic
le 4
(3) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
119
5 lis
ts th
e fa
ctor
s whi
ch th
e co
mpe
tent
au
thor
ities
mus
t tak
e in
to a
ccou
nt d
urin
g th
e in
divi
dual
ass
essm
ent o
f an
appl
icat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal
prot
ectio
n an
d th
at A
rtic
le 4
(5) o
f tha
t dire
ctiv
e sp
ecifi
es th
e co
nditi
ons u
nder
whi
ch a
Mem
ber S
tate
ap
plyi
ng th
e pr
inci
ple
that
it is
the
duty
of t
he a
pplic
ant t
o su
bsta
ntia
te h
is ap
plic
atio
n m
ust c
onsid
er
that
cer
tain
asp
ects
of t
he a
pplic
antrsquos
stat
emen
ts d
o no
t req
uire
con
firm
atio
n T
hose
con
ditio
ns in
clud
e
in p
artic
ular
the
fact
that
the
appl
ican
trsquos st
atem
ents
are
foun
d to
be
cohe
rent
and
pla
usib
le a
nd d
o no
t ru
n co
unte
r to
avai
labl
e sp
ecifi
c an
d ge
nera
l inf
orm
atio
n re
leva
nt to
his
case
as w
ell a
s the
fact
that
the
appl
ican
trsquos g
ener
al c
redi
bilit
y ha
s bee
n es
tabl
ished
rsquo
Para
35
lsquo35
Nev
erth
eles
s th
e pr
oced
ures
sho
uld
reco
urse
be
had
in th
at c
onte
xt t
o an
exp
ertrsquos
repo
rt m
ust b
e co
nsist
ent w
ith o
ther
rele
vant
EU
law
pro
visio
ns a
nd in
par
ticul
ar w
ith th
e fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts g
uara
ntee
d by
the
Char
ter
such
as t
he ri
ght t
o re
spec
t for
hum
an d
igni
ty e
nshr
ined
in A
rtic
le 1
of t
he C
hart
er a
nd
the
right
to re
spec
t for
priv
ate
and
fam
ily li
fe g
uara
ntee
d by
Art
icle
7 th
ereo
frsquo
A an
d O
ther
s C-
148
13 to
C-1
501
3
2 De
cembe
r2014
X an
d O
ther
s C-
199
12 to
C-2
011
2
7 No
vembe
r2013
Shep
herd
C-4
721
3
26 Fe
bruary2015
MC-560149 Fe
bruary
2017
Tem
pelm
an a
nd va
n Sc
haijk
C-9
603
and
C-970310 March2005
CHEZ
Raz
pred
elen
ie
Bulg
aria
C-8
314
16 Ju
ly2015
N C
-601
15
PPU
15 Fe
bruary2016
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 31
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
41
lsquo41
It is
app
aren
t se
cond
ly fr
om A
rtic
le 4
of t
hat d
irect
ive
that
the
exam
inat
ion
of th
e ap
plic
atio
n fo
r in
tern
atio
nal p
rote
ctio
n m
ust i
nclu
de a
n in
divi
dual
ass
essm
ent o
f tha
t app
licat
ion
taki
ng in
to a
ccou
nt
inte
r alia
all
rele
vant
fact
s as t
hey
rela
te to
the
coun
try
of o
rigin
of t
he a
pplic
ant a
t the
tim
e of
taki
ng
a de
cisio
n on
the
appl
icat
ion
the
rele
vant
stat
emen
ts a
nd d
ocum
enta
tion
pres
ente
d by
him
as w
ell a
s hi
s ind
ivid
ual p
ositi
on a
nd p
erso
nal c
ircum
stan
ces
Whe
re n
eces
sary
the
com
pete
nt a
utho
rity
mus
t also
ta
ke a
ccou
nt o
f the
exp
lana
tion
prov
ided
rega
rdin
g a
lack
of e
vide
nce
and
of t
he a
pplic
antrsquos
gen
eral
cr
edib
ility
rsquo
Para
46
lsquo46
In th
e lig
ht o
f tho
se c
onsid
erat
ions
the
ans
wer
to th
e se
cond
que
stio
n is
that
Art
icle
4 o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
119
5 m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
d as
mea
ning
that
it d
oes n
ot p
recl
ude
the
auth
ority
resp
onsib
le fo
r exa
min
ing
appl
icat
ions
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n o
r w
here
an
actio
n ha
s bee
n br
ough
t aga
inst
a d
ecisi
on o
f tha
t au
thor
ity t
he c
ourt
or t
ribun
al se
ised
from
ord
erin
g th
at a
n ex
pert
rsquos re
port
be
obta
ined
in th
e co
ntex
t of
the
asse
ssm
ent o
f the
fact
s and
circ
umst
ance
s rel
atin
g to
the
decl
ared
sexu
al o
rient
atio
n of
an
appl
ican
t pr
ovid
ed th
at th
e pr
oced
ures
for s
uch
arep
ort a
re c
onsis
tent
with
the
fund
amen
tal r
ight
s gua
rant
eed
by th
e Ch
arte
r th
at th
at a
utho
rity
and
thos
e co
urts
or t
ribun
als d
o no
t bas
e th
eir d
ecisi
on so
lely
on
the
conc
lusio
ns o
f the
exp
ertrsquos
repo
rt a
nd th
at th
ey a
re n
ot b
ound
by
thos
e co
nclu
sions
whe
n as
sess
ing
the
appl
ican
trsquos st
atem
ents
rela
ting
to h
is se
xual
orie
ntat
ion
rsquo
Para
54
lsquo54
In th
ose
circ
umst
ance
s a
s the
Adv
ocat
e Ge
nera
l not
ed in
poi
nt 4
3 of
his
Opi
nion
the
pre
para
tion
and
use
of a
psy
chol
ogist
rsquos ex
pert
repo
rt su
ch a
s tha
t at i
ssue
in th
e m
ain
proc
eedi
ngs c
onst
itute
s an
inte
rfere
nce
with
that
per
sonrsquo
s rig
ht to
resp
ect f
or h
is pr
ivat
e lif
ersquo
Para
58
lsquo58
In th
is re
spec
t it
shou
ld b
e no
ted
that
the
suita
bilit
y of
an
expe
rtrsquos
repo
rt su
ch a
s tha
t at i
ssue
in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s may
be
acce
pted
onl
y if
it is
base
d on
suffi
cien
tly re
liabl
e m
etho
ds a
nd p
rinci
ples
in
the
light
of t
he st
anda
rds r
ecog
nise
d by
the
inte
rnat
iona
l sci
entif
ic c
omm
unity
It s
houl
d be
not
ed in
th
at re
gard
that
alth
ough
it is
not
for t
he C
ourt
to ru
le o
n th
is iss
ue w
hich
is a
s an
asse
ssm
ent o
f the
fa
cts
a m
atte
r with
in th
e na
tiona
l cou
rtrsquos
juris
dict
ion
the
relia
bilit
y of
such
an
expe
rtrsquos
repo
rt h
as b
een
vigo
rous
ly c
onte
sted
by
the
Fren
ch a
nd N
ethe
rland
s Gov
ernm
ents
as w
ell a
s by
the
Com
miss
ion
rsquo
32 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
62
lsquo62
It is
also
nec
essa
ry to
take
acc
ount
in
orde
r to
asse
ss th
e se
rious
ness
of t
he in
terfe
renc
e ar
ising
from
th
e pr
epar
atio
n an
d us
e of
a p
sych
olog
istrsquos
expe
rt re
port
suc
h as
that
at i
ssue
in th
e m
ain
proc
eedi
ngs
of
Prin
cipl
e 18
of t
he Y
ogya
kart
a pr
inci
ples
on
the
appl
icat
ion
of In
tern
atio
nal H
uman
Rig
hts L
aw in
rela
tion
to S
exua
l Orie
ntat
ion
and
Gend
er Id
entit
y to
whi
ch th
e Fr
ench
and
Net
herla
nds G
over
nmen
ts h
ave
refe
rred
whi
ch st
ates
int
er a
lia t
hat n
o pe
rson
may
be
forc
ed to
und
ergo
any
form
of p
sych
olog
ical
test
on
acc
ount
of h
is se
xual
orie
ntat
ion
or g
ende
r ide
ntity
rsquo
Para
66
lsquo66
On
the
one
hand
the
car
ryin
g ou
t of a
per
sona
l int
ervi
ew c
ondu
cted
by
the
pers
onne
l of t
he
dete
rmin
ing
auth
ority
is su
ch a
s to
cont
ribut
e to
the
asse
ssm
ent o
f tho
se st
atem
ents
ina
smuc
h as
bot
h Ar
ticle
13(
3)(a
) of D
irect
ive
2005
85
and
Artic
le 1
5(3)
(a) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
2 pr
ovid
e th
at th
e M
embe
r St
ates
mus
t ens
ure
that
the
pers
on w
ho c
ondu
cts t
he in
terv
iew
is c
ompe
tent
to ta
ke a
ccou
nt o
f the
pe
rson
al c
ircum
stan
ces s
urro
undi
ng th
e ap
plic
atio
n th
ose
circ
umst
ance
s cov
erin
g in
par
ticul
ar th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
sexu
al o
rient
atio
nrsquo
Para
71
lsquo71
It fo
llow
s fro
m th
e fo
rego
ing
that
the
answ
er to
the
first
que
stio
n is
that
Art
icle
4 o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
119
5 re
ad in
the
light
of A
rtic
le 7
of t
he C
hart
er m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
d as
pre
clud
ing
the
prep
arat
ion
and
use
in o
rder
to a
sses
s the
ver
acity
of a
cla
im m
ade
by a
n ap
plic
ant f
or in
tern
atio
nal p
rote
ctio
n co
ncer
ning
his
sexu
al o
rient
atio
n o
f a p
sych
olog
istrsquos
expe
rt re
port
suc
h as
that
at i
ssue
in th
e m
ain
proc
eedi
ngs
the
purp
ose
of w
hich
is o
n th
e ba
sis o
f pro
ject
ive
pers
onal
ity te
sts
to p
rovi
de a
n in
dica
tion
of th
e se
xual
orie
ntat
ion
of th
at a
pplic
antrsquo
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 33
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
A an
d S
v St
aats
secr
etar
is v
an
Veili
ghei
d en
Just
itie
C-55
016
EUC
201
824
8
120
420
18
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ns th
e in
terp
reta
tion
of A
rtic
le 2
(f) o
f Cou
ncil
Directive20
0386EC
of2
2 Septem
ber2
003on
therig
htto
familyre
unificatio
n
Righ
t to
fam
ily re
unifi
catio
n mdash
Dire
ctiv
e 20
038
6EC
mdash D
efin
ition
of lsquo
unac
com
pani
ed m
inor
rsquo mdashRi
ght
of a
refu
gee
to fa
mily
reun
ifica
tion
with
his
pare
nts mdash
Ref
ugee
bel
ow th
e ag
e of
18
at th
e tim
e of
ent
ry
into
the
Mem
ber S
tate
and
at t
he ti
me
of a
pplic
atio
n fo
r asy
lum
but
ove
r 18
at th
e tim
e of
the
deci
sion
gran
ting
asyl
um a
nd o
f his
appl
icat
ion
for f
amily
reun
ifica
tion
mdash R
elev
ant d
ate
for a
sses
sing
lsquomin
orrsquo s
tatu
s of
the
pers
on c
once
rned
Para
34
lsquo34
Whe
reas
und
er A
rtic
le 4
(2)(a
) of D
irect
ive
2003
86
the
poss
ibili
ty o
f suc
h re
unifi
catio
n is
in
prin
cipl
e le
ft to
the
disc
retio
n of
eac
h M
embe
r Sta
te a
nd su
bjec
t in
par
ticul
ar t
o th
e co
nditi
on th
at fi
rst-
degr
ee re
lativ
es in
the
dire
ct a
scen
ding
line
are
dep
ende
nt u
pon
the
spon
sor a
nd d
o no
t enj
oy p
rope
r fa
mily
supp
ort i
n th
e co
untr
y of
orig
in A
rtic
le 1
0(3)
(a) o
f tha
t dire
ctiv
e la
ys d
own
by
way
of e
xcep
tion
to th
at p
rinci
ple
a ri
ght t
o su
ch re
unifi
catio
n fo
r ref
ugee
s who
are
una
ccom
pani
ed m
inor
s whi
ch is
no
t sub
ject
to a
mar
gin
of d
iscre
tion
on th
e pa
rt o
f the
Mem
ber S
tate
s nor
to c
ondi
tions
laid
dow
n in
Ar
ticle
4(2
)(a)rsquo
Para
44
lsquo44
Fin
ally
Dire
ctiv
e 20
038
6 pu
rsue
s not
onl
y in
a g
ener
al w
ay t
he o
bjec
tive
of p
rom
otin
g fa
mily
re
unifi
catio
n an
d gr
antin
g pr
otec
tion
to th
ird-c
ount
ry n
atio
nals
in p
artic
ular
min
ors (
see
to th
at e
ffect
judg
men
tof6
Decem
ber2
012O
and
Oth
ers
C-3
561
1 an
d C-
357
11 E
UC
201
277
6 p
arag
raph
69)
but
by
Art
icle
10(
3)(a
) the
reof
see
ks sp
ecifi
cally
to g
uara
ntee
an
addi
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
for t
hose
refu
gees
who
ar
e un
acco
mpa
nied
min
orsrsquo
Para
55
lsquo55
In th
ose
circ
umst
ance
s to
mak
e th
e rig
ht to
fam
ily re
unifi
catio
n un
der A
rtic
le 1
0(3)
(a) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
038
6 de
pend
upo
n th
e m
omen
t at w
hich
the
com
pete
nt n
atio
nal a
utho
rity
form
ally
ado
pts t
he
deci
sion
reco
gnisi
ng th
e re
fuge
e st
atus
of t
he p
erso
n co
ncer
ned
and
ther
efor
e o
n ho
w q
uick
ly o
r slo
wly
th
e ap
plic
atio
n fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
is pr
oces
sed
by th
at a
utho
rity
wou
ld c
all i
nto
ques
tion
the
effe
ctiv
enes
s of t
hat p
rovi
sion
and
wou
ld g
o ag
ains
t not
onl
y th
e ai
m o
f tha
t dire
ctiv
e w
hich
is to
pr
omot
e fa
mily
reun
ifica
tion
and
to g
rant
in th
at re
gard
a sp
ecifi
c pr
otec
tion
to re
fuge
es i
n pa
rtic
ular
un
acco
mpa
nied
min
ors
but
also
the
prin
cipl
es o
f equ
al tr
eatm
ent a
nd le
gal c
erta
inty
rsquo
Ouh
ram
i C-
225
16
26 Ju
ly2017
O a
nd O
ther
s C-
356
11
and
C-35
711
6 De
cembe
r2012
Noor
zia C
-338
13
17 Ju
ly2014
HTC-3731324 June
20
15
34 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
58
lsquo58
Mor
eove
r in
stea
d of
pro
mpt
ing
natio
nal a
utho
ritie
s to
trea
t app
licat
ions
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n fr
om u
nacc
ompa
nied
min
ors u
rgen
tly in
ord
er to
take
acc
ount
of t
heir
part
icul
ar v
ulne
rabi
lity
a p
ossib
ility
w
hich
is a
lread
y ex
plic
itly
offe
red
by A
rtic
le 3
1(7)
(b) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
2 su
ch a
n in
terp
reta
tion
coul
d ha
ve th
e op
posit
e ef
fect
fru
stra
ting
the
obje
ctiv
e pu
rsue
d bo
th b
y th
at d
irect
ive
and
by D
irect
ives
20
038
6 an
d 20
119
5 of
ens
urin
g th
at i
n ac
cord
ance
with
Art
icle
24(
2) o
f the
Cha
rter
of F
unda
men
tal
Righ
ts t
he b
est i
nter
ests
of t
he c
hild
is in
pra
ctic
e a
prim
ary
cons
ider
atio
n fo
r Mem
ber S
tate
s in
the
appl
icat
ion
of th
ose
dire
ctiv
esrsquo
Para
64
lsquo64
In th
e lig
ht o
f all
the
fore
goin
g th
e an
swer
to th
e qu
estio
n re
ferr
ed is
that
Art
icle
2(f)
of D
irect
ive
2003
86
read
in c
onju
nctio
n w
ith A
rtic
le 1
0(3)
(a) t
here
of m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
d as
mea
ning
that
a th
ird-
coun
try
natio
nal o
r sta
tele
ss p
erso
n w
ho is
bel
ow th
e ag
e of
18
at th
e m
omen
t of h
is or
her
ent
ry in
to th
e te
rrito
ry o
f a M
embe
r Sta
te a
nd o
f the
intr
oduc
tion
of h
is or
her
asy
lum
app
licat
ion
in th
at S
tate
but
who
in
the
cour
se o
f the
asy
lum
pro
cedu
re a
ttai
ns th
e ag
e of
maj
ority
and
is th
erea
fter g
rant
ed re
fuge
e st
atus
m
ust b
e re
gard
ed a
s a lsquom
inor
rsquo for
the
purp
oses
of t
hat p
rovi
sion
rsquo
CJEU
[GC]
MP
v Se
cret
ary
of
Stat
e fo
r the
Hom
e De
part
men
t
C-35
316
EUC
201
827
6
240
420
18
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
s 2(e
) and
15(
b)
ofCou
ncilDirective20
0483EC
of2
9 Ap
ril200
4on
minim
umstan
dardsforth
equ
alificatio
nan
dstatusof
third
cou
ntry
nat
iona
ls or
stat
eles
s per
sons
as r
efug
ees o
r as p
erso
ns w
ho o
ther
wise
nee
d in
tern
atio
nal
prot
ectio
n an
d th
e co
nten
t of t
he p
rote
ctio
n gr
ante
d
Asyl
um p
olic
y mdash
Cha
rter
of F
unda
men
tal R
ight
s of t
he E
urop
ean
Uni
on mdash
Art
icle
4 mdash
Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3EC
mdash A
rtic
le 2
(e) mdash
Elig
ibili
ty fo
r sub
sidia
ry p
rote
ctio
n mdash
Art
icle
15(
b) mdash
Risk
of s
erio
us h
arm
to th
e ps
ycho
logi
cal h
ealth
of t
he a
pplic
ant i
f ret
urne
d to
the
coun
try
of o
rigin
mdash P
erso
n w
ho h
as b
een
tort
ured
in
the
coun
try
of o
rigin
Para
30
lsquo30
In th
at c
onte
xt i
t mus
t firs
t be
poin
ted
out t
hat t
he fa
ct th
at th
e pe
rson
con
cern
ed h
as in
the
past
be
en to
rtur
ed b
y th
e au
thor
ities
of h
is co
untr
y of
orig
in is
not
in it
self
suffi
cien
t jus
tific
atio
n fo
r him
to b
e el
igib
le fo
r sub
sidia
ry p
rote
ctio
n w
hen
ther
e is
no lo
nger
a re
al ri
sk th
at su
ch to
rtur
e w
ill b
e re
peat
ed if
he
is re
turn
ed to
that
cou
ntry
rsquo
Moh
amed
MrsquoB
odj
v Eacutet
at b
elge
C-5421318 De
cembe
r20
14
Aranyosi an
d Că
ldăraru
C-
404
15 a
nd
C-65915PPU
5 April
2016
CK a
nd O
ther
s v
Repu
blika
Slo
veni
ja
C-57
816
PPU
16 Fe
bruary2017
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 35
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
s 3
6-58
lsquo36
In th
at re
gard
it s
houl
d be
reca
lled
that
Art
icle
15(
b) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3 m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
d an
d ap
plie
d in
a m
anne
r tha
t is c
onsis
tent
with
the
right
s gua
rant
eed
by A
rtic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
er o
f Fu
ndam
enta
l Rig
hts o
f the
Eur
opea
n U
nion
(lsquoth
e Ch
arte
rrsquo)
whi
ch e
nshr
ines
one
of t
he fu
ndam
enta
l va
lues
of t
he U
nion
and
its M
embe
r Sta
tes a
nd is
abs
olut
e in
that
that
val
ue is
clo
sely
link
ed to
resp
ect f
or
hum
an d
igni
ty t
he su
bjec
t of A
rtic
le 1
of t
he C
hart
er
lsquo37
Mor
eove
r it
shou
ld b
e re
calle
d th
at i
n ac
cord
ance
with
Art
icle
52(
3) o
f the
Cha
rter
in
so fa
r as
the
right
s gua
rant
eed
by A
rtic
le 4
ther
eof c
orre
spon
d to
thos
e gu
aran
teed
by
Artic
le 3
of t
he E
CHR
the
mea
ning
and
scop
e of
thos
e rig
hts a
re th
e sa
me
as th
ose
laid
dow
n by
Art
icle
3 o
f the
ECH
R
lsquo38
It f
ollo
ws f
rom
the
case
-law
of t
he E
urop
ean
Cour
t of H
uman
Rig
hts r
elat
ing
to A
rtic
le 3
of t
he E
CHR
that
the
suffe
ring
caus
ed b
y a
natu
rally
occ
urrin
g ill
ness
whe
ther
phy
sical
or m
enta
l m
ay b
e co
vere
d by
that
art
icle
if it
is o
r risk
s bei
ng e
xace
rbat
ed b
y tr
eatm
ent
whe
ther
resu
lting
from
con
ditio
ns o
f de
tent
ion
rem
oval
or o
ther
mea
sure
s fo
r whi
ch th
e au
thor
ities
can
be
held
resp
onsib
le p
rovi
ded
that
th
e re
sulti
ng su
fferin
g at
tain
s the
min
imum
leve
l of s
ever
ity re
quire
d by
that
art
icle
lsquo39
Pur
suan
t to
the
case
-law
of t
he E
urop
ean
Cour
t of H
uman
Rig
hts
the
sam
e th
resh
old
of se
verit
y m
ust b
e m
et in
ord
er fo
r Art
icle
3 o
f the
ECH
R to
pre
clud
e th
e de
port
atio
n of
a p
erso
n w
hose
illn
ess i
s no
t nat
ural
ly o
ccur
ring
whe
re th
e la
ck o
f car
e th
at w
ould
be
avai
labl
e to
that
per
son
onc
e ex
pelle
d is
not
at
trib
utab
le to
inte
ntio
nal a
cts o
r om
issio
ns o
f the
rece
ivin
g St
ate
lsquo40
As r
egar
ds s
peci
fical
ly th
e th
resh
old
of se
verit
y fo
r fin
ding
a v
iola
tion
of A
rtic
le 3
of t
he E
CHR
it
follo
ws f
rom
the
mos
t rec
ent c
ase-
law
of t
he E
urop
ean
Cour
t of H
uman
Rig
hts t
hat t
hat p
rovi
sion
prec
lude
s the
rem
oval
of a
serio
usly
ill p
erso
n w
here
he
is at
risk
of i
mm
inen
t dea
th o
r whe
re su
bsta
ntia
l gr
ound
s hav
e be
en sh
own
for b
elie
ving
that
alth
ough
not
at i
mm
inen
t risk
of d
ying
he
wou
ld fa
ce a
real
ris
k o
n ac
coun
t of t
he a
bsen
ce o
f app
ropr
iate
trea
tmen
t in
the
rece
ivin
g co
untr
y or
the
lack
of a
cces
s to
such
trea
tmen
t of
suffe
ring
a se
rious
rap
id a
nd ir
reve
rsib
le d
eclin
e in
his
stat
e of
hea
lth re
sulti
ng in
in
tens
e su
fferin
g or
to a
sign
ifica
nt re
duct
ion
in li
fe e
xpec
tanc
y
ECtH
R P
apos
hvili
v
Belg
ium
no 4173810
13 Decem
ber2
016
ECtH
R [G
C] S
HH
v Un
ited
King
dom
no
603671029 Janu
ary
2013
Abdi
da C
-562
13
18 Decem
ber2
014
36 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo41
Sim
ilarly
Art
icle
4 o
f the
Cha
rter
mus
t be
inte
rpre
ted
as m
eani
ng th
at th
e re
mov
al o
f a th
ird
coun
try
natio
nal w
ith a
par
ticul
arly
serio
us m
enta
l or p
hysic
al il
lnes
s con
stitu
tes i
nhum
an a
nd
degr
adin
g tr
eatm
ent
with
in th
e m
eani
ng o
f tha
t art
icle
whe
re su
ch re
mov
al w
ould
resu
lt in
a re
al
and
dem
onst
rabl
e ris
k of
sign
ifica
nt a
nd p
erm
anen
t det
erio
ratio
n in
the
stat
e of
hea
lth o
f the
pe
rson
con
cerned
(see
byan
alog
yjudg
men
tof1
6 Februa
ry201
7C
K a
nd O
ther
s C
-578
16
PPU
EU
C2
017
127
par
agra
ph 7
4) T
he sa
me
conc
lusio
n ca
n be
dra
wn
as re
gard
s the
app
licat
ion
of
Artic
le 1
9(2)
of t
he C
hart
er w
hich
pro
vide
s tha
t no
one
may
be
rem
oved
to a
Sta
te w
here
ther
e is
a se
rious
risk
that
he
wou
ld b
e su
bjec
ted
to in
hum
an o
r deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent
lsquo42
In
that
rega
rd t
he C
ourt
has
hel
d th
at p
artic
ular
ly in
the
case
of a
serio
us p
sych
iatr
ic il
lnes
s it
is
not s
uffic
ient
to c
onsid
er o
nly
the
cons
eque
nces
of p
hysic
ally
tran
spor
ting
the
pers
on c
once
rned
from
a
Mem
ber S
tate
to a
third
cou
ntry
rat
her
it is
nece
ssar
y to
con
sider
all
the
signi
fican
t and
per
man
ent
conseq
uencesth
atm
ightarisefrom
theremoval(see
byan
alog
yjudg
men
tof1
6 Februa
ry201
7C
K
and
Oth
ers
C-5
781
6 PP
U E
UC
201
712
7 p
arag
raph
76)
Mor
eove
r gi
ven
the
fund
amen
tal i
mpo
rtan
ce
of th
e pr
ohib
ition
of t
ortu
re a
nd in
hum
an o
r deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent l
aid
dow
n in
Art
icle
4 o
f the
Cha
rter
pa
rtic
ular
att
entio
n m
ust b
e pa
id to
the
spec
ific
vuln
erab
ilitie
s of p
erso
ns w
hose
psy
chol
ogic
al su
fferin
g
whi
ch is
like
ly to
be
exac
erba
ted
in th
e ev
ent o
f the
ir re
mov
al i
s a c
onse
quen
ce o
f tor
ture
or i
nhum
an o
r de
grad
ing
trea
tmen
t in
thei
r cou
ntry
of o
rigin
lsquo43
It f
ollo
ws t
hat A
rtic
le 4
and
Art
icle
19(
2) o
f the
Cha
rter
as i
nter
pret
ed in
the
light
of A
rtic
le 3
of t
he
ECHR
pre
clud
e a
Mem
ber S
tate
from
exp
ellin
g a
third
cou
ntry
nat
iona
l whe
re su
ch e
xpul
sion
wou
ld
in e
ssen
ce r
esul
t in
signi
fican
t and
per
man
ent d
eter
iora
tion
of th
at p
erso
nrsquos m
enta
l hea
lth d
isord
ers
pa
rtic
ular
ly w
here
as i
n th
e pr
esen
t cas
e su
ch d
eter
iora
tion
wou
ld e
ndan
ger h
is lif
e
lsquo44
Mor
eove
r th
e Co
urt h
as p
revi
ously
hel
d th
at i
n su
ch e
xcep
tiona
l cas
es t
he re
mov
al o
f a th
ird
coun
try
natio
nal s
uffe
ring
from
a se
rious
illn
ess t
o a
coun
try
in w
hich
app
ropr
iate
trea
tmen
t is n
ot
avai
labl
e m
ay c
onst
itute
an
infr
inge
men
t of t
he p
rinci
ple
of n
on-r
efou
lem
ent a
nd t
here
fore
an
infr
inge
men
t of A
rtic
le 5
of D
irect
ive
2008
115
rea
d in
the
light
of A
rtic
le 1
9 of
the
Char
ter
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 37
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo45
Nev
erth
eles
s it
is a
ppar
ent f
rom
the
requ
est f
or a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g th
at th
e re
leva
nt n
atio
nal c
ourt
s ha
ve h
eld
that
Art
icle
3 o
f the
ECH
R pr
eclu
des M
P be
ing
rem
oved
from
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
to S
ri La
nka
Th
us th
e pr
esen
t cas
e do
es n
ot c
once
rn th
e pr
otec
tion
agai
nst r
emov
al d
eriv
ing
und
er A
rtic
le 3
of t
he
ECHR
fro
m th
e pr
ohib
ition
on
expo
sing
a pe
rson
to in
hum
an o
r deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent
but r
athe
r the
se
para
te is
sue
as to
whe
ther
the
host
Mem
ber S
tate
is re
quire
d to
gra
nt su
bsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
stat
us
unde
r Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3 to
a th
ird c
ount
ry n
atio
nal w
ho h
as b
een
tort
ured
by
the
auth
oriti
es o
f his
coun
try
of o
rigin
and
suffe
rs se
vere
psy
chol
ogic
al a
fter-e
ffect
s whi
ch i
n th
e ev
ent o
f him
bei
ng re
turn
ed
to th
at c
ount
ry c
ould
be
subs
tant
ially
agg
rava
ted
and
lead
to a
serio
us ri
sk o
f him
com
mitt
ing
suic
ide
lsquo46
The
cou
rt h
as a
lso p
revi
ously
hel
d th
at th
e fa
ct th
at A
rtic
le 3
of t
he E
CHR
as o
bser
ved
in
para
grap
hs 3
9 to
41
abov
e p
recl
udes
in
very
exc
eptio
nal c
ases
a th
ird c
ount
ry n
atio
nal s
uffe
ring
from
a se
rious
illn
ess b
eing
rem
oved
to a
cou
ntry
in w
hich
app
ropr
iate
trea
tmen
t is n
ot a
vaila
ble
does
no
t mea
n th
at th
at p
erso
n sh
ould
be
gran
ted
leav
e to
resid
e in
a M
embe
r Sta
te b
y w
ay o
f sub
sidia
ry
prot
ectio
n un
der D
irect
ive
2004
83
lsquo47N
everthelessitshou
ldbeno
tedthatunlike
thecasegivingrisetoth
ejudgmento
f18 De
cembe
r20
14 M
rsquoBod
j (C-
542
13 E
UC
2014
245
2) w
hich
conc
erne
d a
third
coun
try
natio
nal w
ho h
ad b
een
the
vict
im
of a
n as
saul
t in
the
host
Mem
ber S
tate
the
pre
sent
case
conc
erns
a th
ird co
untr
y na
tiona
l who
was
tort
ured
by
the
auth
oriti
es o
f his
coun
try
of o
rigin
and
who
acc
ordi
ng to
dul
y su
bsta
ntia
ted
med
ical e
vide
nce
cont
inue
s as
a re
sult
of th
ose
acts
to
suffe
r fro
m p
ost-t
raum
atic
afte
r-effe
cts t
hat a
re lik
ely
to b
e sig
nific
antly
and
pe
rman
ently
exa
cerb
ated
to
the
poin
t of e
ndan
gerin
g hi
s life
if h
e is
retu
rned
to th
at co
untr
y
lsquo48
In
thos
e ci
rcum
stan
ces
bot
h th
e ca
use
of th
e cu
rren
t sta
te o
f hea
lth o
f a th
ird c
ount
ry n
atio
nal
in a
situ
atio
n su
ch a
s tha
t in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s n
amel
y ac
ts o
f tor
ture
infli
cted
by
the
auth
oriti
es
of h
is co
untr
y of
orig
in in
the
past
and
the
fact
that
if h
e w
ere
to b
e re
turn
ed to
his
coun
try
of o
rigin
hi
s men
tal h
ealth
diso
rder
s wou
ld b
e su
bsta
ntia
lly a
ggra
vate
d on
acc
ount
of t
he p
sych
olog
ical
trau
ma
that
he
cont
inue
s to
suffe
r as a
resu
lt of
that
tort
ure
are
rele
vant
fact
ors t
o be
take
n in
to a
ccou
nt w
hen
inte
rpre
ting
Artic
le 1
5(b)
of D
irect
ive
2004
83
lsquo49
Nev
erth
eles
s su
ch su
bsta
ntia
l agg
rava
tion
cann
ot i
n its
elf
be re
gard
ed a
s inh
uman
or d
egra
ding
tr
eatm
ent i
nflic
ted
on th
at th
ird c
ount
ry n
atio
nal i
n hi
s cou
ntry
of o
rigin
with
in th
e m
eani
ng o
f Ar
ticle
15(
b) o
f tha
t dire
ctiv
e
lsquo50
In
that
rega
rd i
t is a
ppro
pria
te to
exa
min
e a
s req
uest
ed in
the
orde
r for
refe
renc
e th
e ef
fect
that
may
re
sult
from
a la
ck i
n th
e co
untr
y of
orig
in o
f the
per
son
conc
erne
d o
f fac
ilitie
s offe
ring
appr
opria
te ca
re fo
r th
e ph
ysica
l and
men
tal a
fter-e
ffect
s res
ultin
g fro
m th
e to
rtur
e in
flict
ed b
y th
e au
thor
ities
of t
hat c
ount
ry
38 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo51
In th
at re
spec
t it
shou
ld b
e re
calle
d th
at th
e Co
urt h
as h
eld
that
the
serio
us h
arm
refe
rred
to in
Ar
ticle
15(
b) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3 ca
nnot
sim
ply
be th
e re
sult
of g
ener
al sh
ortc
omin
gs in
the
heal
th
syst
em o
f the
cou
ntry
of o
rigin
The
risk
of d
eter
iora
tion
in th
e he
alth
of a
third
cou
ntry
nat
iona
l who
is
suffe
ring
from
a se
rious
illn
ess
as a
resu
lt of
ther
e be
ing
no a
ppro
pria
te tr
eatm
ent i
n hi
s cou
ntry
of o
rigin
is
not s
uffic
ient
unl
ess t
hat t
hird
cou
ntry
nat
iona
l is i
nten
tiona
lly d
epriv
ed o
f hea
lth c
are
to w
arra
nt th
at
pers
on b
eing
gra
nted
subs
idia
ry p
rote
ctio
n
lsquo52
In o
rder
to a
sses
s whe
ther
a th
ird c
ount
ry n
atio
nal w
ho h
as in
the
past
bee
n to
rtur
ed b
y th
e au
thor
ities
of h
is co
untr
y of
orig
in f
aces
if r
etur
ned
to th
at c
ount
ry a
real
risk
of b
eing
inte
ntio
nally
de
priv
ed o
f app
ropr
iate
car
e fo
r the
phy
sical
and
men
tal a
fter-e
ffect
s res
ultin
g fr
om th
e to
rtur
e in
flict
ed
by th
ose
auth
oriti
es i
t is n
eces
sary
in
the
light
of w
hat h
as b
een
stat
ed in
par
agra
ph 5
0 ab
ove
and
reci
tal
25 o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3 w
hich
stat
es th
at th
e cr
iteria
for g
rant
ing
subs
idia
ry p
rote
ctio
n m
ust b
e dr
awn
from
inte
rnat
iona
l hum
an ri
ghts
inst
rum
ents
to
take
Art
icle
14
of th
e Co
nven
tion
agai
nst T
ortu
re in
to
cons
ider
atio
n
lsquo53
Acc
ordi
ng to
that
pro
visio
n S
tate
par
ties t
o th
at c
onve
ntio
n m
ust e
nsur
e th
at u
nder
thei
r leg
al
syst
ems
a v
ictim
of t
ortu
re h
as th
e rig
ht to
obt
ain
redr
ess
incl
udin
g th
e re
sour
ces n
eces
sary
to a
chie
ve a
s fu
ll a
reha
bilit
atio
n as
pos
sible
lsquo54
In th
at re
gard
it m
ust
how
ever
be
note
d th
at th
e re
gim
e in
trod
uced
by
Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3 pu
rsue
s di
ffere
nt a
ims a
nd e
stab
lishe
s pro
tect
ion
mec
hani
sms w
hich
are
cle
arly
dist
inct
from
thos
e of
the
Conv
entio
n ag
ains
t Tor
ture
lsquo55
As i
s app
aren
t fro
m it
s six
th re
cital
and
Art
icle
2 th
e m
ain
obje
ctiv
e of
the
Conv
entio
n ag
ains
t Tor
ture
is
to m
ake
mor
e ef
fect
ive
the
stru
ggle
aga
inst
tort
ure
and
othe
r cru
el i
nhum
an o
r deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent
or p
unish
men
t thr
ough
out t
he w
orld
by
mea
ns o
f pre
vent
ion
How
ever
the
mai
n ob
ject
ive
of D
irect
ive
2004
83
as s
et o
ut in
its s
ixth
recit
al i
s on
the
one
hand
to
ensu
re th
at M
embe
r Sta
tes a
pply
com
mon
cr
iteria
for t
he id
entif
icatio
n of
per
sons
gen
uine
ly in
nee
d of
inte
rnat
iona
l pro
tect
ion
and
on
the
othe
r ha
nd t
o en
sure
that
a m
inim
um le
vel o
f ben
efits
is a
vaila
ble
for t
hose
per
sons
in a
ll M
embe
r Sta
tes
As
rega
rds
mor
e sp
ecifi
cally
the
ben
efici
arie
s of s
ubsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
stat
us t
hat d
irect
ive
aim
s to
offe
r w
ithin
th
e te
rrito
ry o
f the
Mem
ber S
tate
s pr
otec
tion
simila
r to
that
affo
rded
to re
fuge
es b
y th
e Co
nven
tion
rela
ting
toth
eStatusofR
efugeessig
nedinGen
evaon
28 July195
1(U
nite
d N
atio
ns T
reat
y Se
ries
Vol
189
p 1
50
No
2545
(195
4))
to p
erso
ns w
ho ca
nnot
be
rega
rded
as r
efug
ees b
ut a
re a
t risk
int
er a
lia o
f bei
ng su
bjec
ted
to to
rtur
e or
inhu
man
or d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t if r
etur
ned
to th
eir c
ount
ry o
f orig
in
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 39
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo56
Acc
ordi
ngly
it is
not
pos
sible
with
out d
isreg
ardi
ng th
e di
stin
ct a
reas
cov
ered
by
thos
e tw
o re
gim
es
for a
third
cou
ntry
nat
iona
l in
a sit
uatio
n su
ch a
s tha
t of M
P to
be
elig
ible
for s
ubsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
as
a re
sult
of e
very
vio
latio
n b
y hi
s Sta
te o
f orig
in o
f Art
icle
14
of th
e Co
nven
tion
agai
nst T
ortu
re
lsquo57
It is
ther
efor
e fo
r the
nat
iona
l cou
rt to
asc
erta
in i
n th
e lig
ht o
f all
curr
ent a
nd re
leva
nt in
form
atio
n
in p
artic
ular
repo
rts b
y in
tern
atio
nal o
rgan
isatio
ns a
nd n
on-g
over
nmen
tal h
uman
righ
ts o
rgan
isatio
ns
whe
ther
in
the
pres
ent c
ase
MP
is lik
ely
if re
turn
ed to
his
coun
try
of o
rigin
to
face
a ri
sk o
f bei
ng
inte
ntio
nally
dep
rived
of a
ppro
pria
te c
are
for t
he p
hysic
al a
nd m
enta
l afte
r-effe
cts r
esul
ting
from
the
tort
ure
he w
as su
bjec
ted
to b
y th
e au
thor
ities
of t
hat c
ount
ry T
hat w
ill b
e th
e ca
se i
nter
alia
if
in
circ
umst
ance
s whe
re a
s in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s a
third
cou
ntry
nat
iona
l is a
t risk
of c
omm
ittin
g su
icid
e be
caus
e of
the
trau
ma
resu
lting
from
the
tort
ure
he w
as su
bjec
ted
to b
y th
e au
thor
ities
of h
is co
untr
y of
orig
in i
t is c
lear
that
thos
e au
thor
ities
not
with
stan
ding
thei
r obl
igat
ion
unde
r Art
icle
14
of th
e Co
nven
tion
agai
nst T
ortu
re a
re n
ot p
repa
red
to p
rovi
de fo
r his
reha
bilit
atio
n T
here
will
also
be
such
a ri
sk
if it
is ap
pare
nt th
at th
e au
thor
ities
of t
hat c
ount
ry h
ave
adop
ted
a di
scrim
inat
ory
polic
y as
rega
rds a
cces
s to
hea
lth c
are
thus
mak
ing
it m
ore
diffi
cult
for c
erta
in e
thni
c gr
oups
or c
erta
in g
roup
s of i
ndiv
idua
ls o
f w
hich
MP
form
s par
t to
obt
ain
acce
ss to
app
ropr
iate
car
e fo
r the
phy
sical
and
men
tal a
fter-e
ffect
s of t
he
tort
ure
perp
etra
ted
by th
ose
auth
oriti
es
lsquo58
It f
ollo
ws f
rom
the
fore
goin
g th
at A
rtic
les 2
(e) a
nd 1
5(b)
of D
irect
ive
2004
83
read
in th
e lig
ht o
f Ar
ticle
4 o
f the
Cha
rter
mus
t be
inte
rpre
ted
as m
eani
ng th
at a
third
cou
ntry
nat
iona
l who
in th
e pa
st
has b
een
tort
ured
by
the
auth
oriti
es o
f his
coun
try
of o
rigin
and
no
long
er fa
ces a
risk
of b
eing
tort
ured
if
retu
rned
to th
at c
ount
ry b
ut w
hose
phy
sical
and
psy
chol
ogic
al h
ealth
cou
ld i
f so
retu
rned
ser
ious
ly
dete
riora
te l
eadi
ng to
a se
rious
risk
of h
im c
omm
ittin
g su
icid
e on
acc
ount
of t
raum
a re
sulti
ng fr
om
the
tort
ure
he w
as su
bjec
ted
to i
s elig
ible
for s
ubsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
if th
ere
is a
real
risk
of h
im b
eing
in
tent
iona
lly d
epriv
ed i
n hi
s cou
ntry
of o
rigin
of a
ppro
pria
te c
are
for t
he p
hysic
al a
nd m
enta
l afte
r-ef
fect
s of t
hat t
ortu
re t
hat b
eing
a m
atte
r for
the
natio
nal c
ourt
to d
eter
min
ersquo
40 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
[GC]
Serin
Alh
eto
v Za
mes
tnik
-pre
dsed
atel
na
Dar
zhav
na a
gent
sia
za b
ezha
ntsi
te
C-58
516
EUC
201
858
4
250
720
18
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
12(
1) o
f Directive20
1195EU
ofthe
Europ
eanParliam
enta
ndofthe
Cou
ncilof13 De
cembe
r201
1on
stan
dards
for t
he q
ualif
icat
ion
of th
ird-c
ount
ry n
atio
nals
or st
atel
ess p
erso
ns a
s ben
efic
iarie
s of i
nter
natio
nal
prot
ectio
n fo
r a u
nifo
rm st
atus
for r
efug
ees o
r for
per
sons
elig
ible
for s
ubsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
and
for t
he
cont
ent o
f the
pro
tect
ion
gran
ted
Com
mon
pol
icy
on a
sylu
m a
nd su
bsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
mdash S
tand
ards
for t
he q
ualif
icat
ion
of th
ird-c
ount
ry
natio
nals
or st
atel
ess p
erso
ns a
s ben
efic
iarie
s of i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n mdash
Dire
ctiv
e 20
119
5EU
mdash
Artic
le 1
2 mdash
Exc
lusio
n fr
om re
fuge
e st
atus
mdash P
erso
ns re
gist
ered
with
the
Uni
ted
Nat
ions
Rel
ief a
nd W
orks
Ag
ency
for P
ales
tine
Refu
gees
in th
e N
ear E
ast (
UN
RWA)
Para
14
rsquo14
Art
icle
12
of th
at d
irect
ive
whi
ch is
also
con
tain
ed in
Cha
pter
III
is en
title
d lsquoE
xclu
sionrsquo
and
pro
vide
s as
follo
ws
lsquo1
A
third
-cou
ntry
nat
iona
l or a
stat
eles
s per
son
is ex
clud
ed fr
om b
eing
a re
fuge
e if
(a)
h
e or
she
falls
with
in th
e sc
ope
of A
rtic
le 1
(D) o
f the
Gen
eva
Conv
entio
n re
latin
g to
pro
tect
ion
or a
ssist
ance
from
org
ans o
r age
ncie
s of t
he U
nite
d N
atio
ns o
ther
than
the
Uni
ted
Nat
ions
Hig
h Co
mm
issio
ner f
or R
efug
ees
Whe
n su
ch p
rote
ctio
n or
ass
istan
ce h
as c
ease
d fo
r any
reas
on w
ithou
t the
po
sitio
n of
such
per
sons
bei
ng d
efin
itely
sett
led
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith th
e re
leva
nt re
solu
tions
ado
pted
by
the
Gene
ral A
ssem
bly
of th
e U
nite
d N
atio
ns t
hose
per
sons
shal
l ips
o fa
cto
be e
ntitl
ed to
the
bene
fits o
f th
is Di
rect
ive
helliprsquo
Para
103
lsquo103
In
that
rega
rd i
t sho
uld
be n
oted
firs
t of a
ll th
at D
irect
ive
2013
32
dist
ingu
ishes
bet
wee
n th
e lsquod
eter
min
ing
auth
ority
rsquo whi
ch it
def
ines
in A
rtic
le 2
(f) a
s lsquoan
y qu
asi-j
udic
ial o
r adm
inist
rativ
e bo
dy in
a
Mem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
le fo
r exa
min
ing
appl
icat
ions
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n co
mpe
tent
to ta
ke
deci
sions
at f
irst i
nsta
nce
in su
ch c
ases
rsquo and
the
lsquocour
t or t
ribun
alrsquo r
efer
red
to in
Art
icle
46
The
pro
cedu
re
befo
re a
det
erm
inin
g au
thor
ity is
gov
erne
d by
the
prov
ision
s of C
hapt
er II
I of t
hat d
irect
ive
ent
itled
lsquoP
roce
dure
s at f
irst i
nsta
ncersquo
whi
le th
e pr
oced
ure
befo
re a
cou
rt o
r trib
unal
mus
t com
ply
with
the
rule
s la
id d
own
in C
hapt
er V
of t
hat d
irect
ive
ent
itled
lsquoApp
eals
proc
edur
esrsquo w
hich
is m
ade
up o
f Art
icle
46
rsquo
Cord
ero
Alon
so
C-81057 Sep
tembe
r20
06
VTB-
VAB
and
Gala
tea
C-
261
07 a
nd C
-299
07
23 April2
009
Abed
El K
arem
El K
ott
and
Oth
ers
C-36
411
19 Decem
ber2
012
Dom
ingu
ez C
-282
10
24 Janu
ary2012
Asso
ciatio
n de
m
eacutedia
tion
socia
le
C-1761215 Janu
ary
2014
Ambi
sigC-46157 Ju
ly
2016
Diak
iteacute C
-285
12
30 Janu
ary2014
Zh a
nd O
C-
554
13
11 Ju
ne2015
Jafa
riC-6461626 July
2017
Sack
oC-3481626 July
2017
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 41
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
107
lsquo107
In
the
abse
nce
of a
ny re
fere
nce
to th
e la
ws o
f the
Mem
ber S
tate
s a
nd h
avin
g re
gard
to th
e pu
rpos
e of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
2 se
t out
in re
cita
l 4 th
ereo
f th
ose
wor
ds m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
d an
d ap
plie
d in
a
unifo
rm m
anne
r M
oreo
ver
as re
cita
l 13
of th
at d
irect
ive
stat
es t
he a
ppro
xim
atio
n of
rule
s und
er th
at
dire
ctiv
e ai
ms t
o cr
eate
equ
ival
ent c
ondi
tions
for t
he a
pplic
atio
n of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
119
5 in
the
Mem
ber
Stat
es a
nd to
lim
it th
e m
ovem
ents
of a
pplic
ants
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n be
twee
n M
embe
r Sta
tesrsquo
Para
s 1
09-1
14
lsquo109
In
that
rega
rd a
part
from
the
fact
that
it p
ursu
es th
e ov
eral
l pur
pose
of e
stab
lishi
ng c
omm
on
proc
edur
al st
anda
rds
Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
2 se
eks i
n pa
rtic
ular
as i
s app
aren
t int
er a
lia fr
om re
cita
l 18
to
ens
ure
that
app
licat
ions
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n ar
e de
alt w
ith lsquoa
s soo
n as
pos
sible
hellip w
ithou
t pr
ejud
ice
to a
n ad
equa
te a
nd c
ompl
ete
exam
inat
ion
bein
g ca
rrie
d ou
trsquo
lsquo110
In
that
con
text
the
wor
ds lsquos
hall
ensu
re th
at a
n ef
fect
ive
rem
edy
prov
ides
for a
full
and
ex
nunc
exa
min
atio
n of
bot
h fa
cts a
nd p
oint
s of l
awrsquo m
ust
in o
rder
not
to d
epriv
e th
em o
f the
ir or
dina
ry
mea
ning
be
inte
rpre
ted
as m
eani
ng th
at th
e M
embe
r Sta
tes a
re re
quire
d b
y vi
rtue
of A
rtic
le 4
6(3)
of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
2 to
ord
er th
eir n
atio
nal l
aw in
such
a w
ay th
at th
e pr
oces
sing
of th
e ap
peal
s ref
erre
d to
in
clud
es a
n ex
amin
atio
n b
y th
e co
urt o
r trib
unal
of a
ll th
e fa
cts a
nd p
oint
s of l
aw n
eces
sary
in o
rder
to
mak
e an
up-
to-d
ate
asse
ssm
ent o
f the
cas
e at
han
d
lsquo111
In
that
rega
rd t
he e
xpre
ssio
n lsquoe
x nu
ncrsquo p
oint
s to
the
cour
t or t
ribun
alrsquos
oblig
atio
n to
mak
e an
as
sess
men
t tha
t tak
es in
to a
ccou
nt s
houl
d th
e ne
ed a
rise
new
evi
denc
e w
hich
has
com
e to
ligh
t afte
r the
ad
optio
n of
the
deci
sion
unde
r app
eal
lsquo112
Suc
h an
ass
essm
ent m
akes
it p
ossib
le to
dea
l with
the
appl
icat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n ex
haus
tivel
y w
ithou
t the
re b
eing
any
nee
d to
refe
r the
cas
e ba
ck to
the
dete
rmin
ing
auth
ority
Thu
s th
e co
urtrsquos
pow
er to
take
into
con
sider
atio
n ne
w e
vide
nce
on w
hich
that
aut
horit
y ha
s not
take
n a
deci
sion
is co
nsist
ent w
ith th
e pu
rpos
e of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
2 a
s ref
erre
d to
in p
arag
raph
109
of t
his j
udgm
ent
lsquo113
For
its p
art
the
adje
ctiv
e lsquofu
llrsquo u
sed
in A
rtic
le 4
6(3)
of D
irect
ive
2013
32
conf
irms t
hat t
he c
ourt
or
trib
unal
is re
quire
d to
exa
min
e bo
th th
e ev
iden
ce w
hich
the
dete
rmin
ing
auth
ority
took
into
acc
ount
or
coul
d ha
ve ta
ken
into
acc
ount
and
that
whi
ch h
as a
risen
follo
win
g th
e ad
optio
n of
the
deci
sion
by th
at
auth
ority
42 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo114
Fu
rthe
rmor
e si
nce
that
pro
visio
n m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
d in
a m
anne
r con
siste
nt w
ith A
rticl
e 47
of t
he
Char
ter
the
requ
irem
ent f
or a
full
and
ex n
unc e
xam
inat
ion
impl
ies t
hat t
he co
urt o
r trib
unal
seise
d of
the
appe
al m
ust i
nter
view
the
appl
icant
unl
ess i
t con
sider
s tha
t it i
s in
a po
sitio
n to
carr
y ou
t the
exa
min
atio
n so
lely
on
the
basis
of t
he in
form
atio
n in
the
case
file
inc
ludi
ng w
here
app
licab
le t
he re
port
or t
rans
crip
t of
thepe
rson
alinterviewbeforethatautho
rity(seetothateffe
ctjud
gmen
tof2
6 July201
7S
acko
C-3
481
6
EUC
201
759
1 p
arag
raph
s 31
and
44)
In th
e ev
ent t
hat n
ew e
vide
nce
com
es to
ligh
t afte
r the
ado
ptio
n of
th
e de
cisio
n un
der a
ppea
l th
e co
urt o
r trib
unal
is re
quire
d a
s fol
low
s fro
m A
rticl
e 47
of t
he C
hart
er t
o of
fer
the
appl
icant
the
oppo
rtun
ity to
exp
ress
his
view
s whe
n th
at e
vide
nce
coul
d af
fect
him
neg
ativ
elyrsquo
Para
116
lsquo116
Fin
ally
it m
ust b
e st
ress
ed th
at it
follo
ws f
rom
reci
tals
16 a
nd 2
2 of
Art
icle
4 a
nd fr
om th
e ge
nera
l sc
hem
e of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
2 th
at th
e ex
amin
atio
n of
the
appl
icat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n by
an
adm
inist
rativ
e or
qua
si-ju
dici
al b
ody
with
spec
ific
reso
urce
s and
spec
ialis
ed st
aff i
n th
is ar
ea is
a v
ital s
tage
of
the
com
mon
pro
cedu
res e
stab
lishe
d by
that
dire
ctiv
e A
ccor
ding
ly th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
righ
t rec
ogni
sed
by
Artic
le 4
6(3)
of t
hat d
irect
ive
to o
btai
n a
full
and
ex n
unc
exam
inat
ion
befo
re a
cou
rt o
r trib
unal
can
not
dim
inish
the
oblig
atio
n on
the
part
of t
hat a
pplic
ant
whi
ch is
gov
erne
d by
Art
icle
s 12
and
13 o
f tha
t di
rect
ive
to c
oope
rate
with
that
bod
yrsquo
Para
125
lsquo125
Whi
le a
n ap
plic
antrsquos
righ
t to
be h
eard
with
rega
rd to
the
adm
issib
ility
of h
is or
her
app
licat
ion
befo
re
any
deci
sion
on th
e m
atte
r is t
aken
is e
nsur
ed i
n th
e co
ntex
t of t
he p
roce
dure
bef
ore
the
dete
rmin
ing
auth
ority
by
the
pers
onal
inte
rvie
w p
rovi
ded
for i
n Ar
ticle
34
of D
irect
ive
2013
32
that
righ
t der
ives
du
ring
the
appe
al p
roce
dure
refe
rred
to in
Art
icle
46
of th
at d
irect
ive
from
Art
icle
47
of th
e Ch
arte
r and
isexercisedifnecessaryb
ymea
nsofa
hea
ringofth
eap
plican
t(seeto
thateffe
ctjud
gmen
tof2
6 July
2017
Sac
ko C
-348
16
EU
C2
017
591
par
agra
phs 3
7 to
44)
rsquo
Para
130
lsquo130
In
the
light
of t
he fo
rego
ing
the
answ
er to
the
four
th q
uest
ion
is th
at A
rtic
le 4
6(3)
of D
irect
ive
2013
32
read
in c
onju
nctio
n w
ith A
rtic
le 4
7 of
the
Char
ter
mus
t be
inte
rpre
ted
as m
eani
ng th
at th
e re
quire
men
t for
a fu
ll an
d ex
nun
c ex
amin
atio
n of
the
fact
s and
poi
nts o
f law
may
also
con
cern
the
grou
nds o
f ina
dmiss
ibili
ty o
f the
app
licat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n re
ferr
ed to
in A
rtic
le 3
3(2)
of t
hat
dire
ctiv
e w
here
per
mitt
ed u
nder
nat
iona
l law
and
that
in
the
even
t tha
t the
cou
rt o
r trib
unal
hea
ring
the
appe
al p
lans
to e
xam
ine
a gr
ound
of i
nadm
issib
ility
whi
ch h
as n
ot b
een
exam
ined
by
the
dete
rmin
ing
auth
ority
it m
ust c
ondu
ct a
hea
ring
of th
e ap
plic
ant i
n or
der t
o al
low
that
indi
vidu
al to
exp
ress
his
or h
er
poin
t of v
iew
in p
erso
n co
ncer
ning
the
appl
icab
ility
of t
hat g
roun
d to
his
or h
er p
artic
ular
circ
umst
ance
srsquo
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 43
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
147
lsquo147
How
ever
Art
icle
46(
3) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
2 w
ould
be
depr
ived
of a
ny p
ract
ical
effe
ct if
it w
ere
acce
pted
that
afte
r del
iver
y of
a ju
dgm
ent b
y w
hich
the
cour
t or t
ribun
al o
f firs
t ins
tanc
e co
nduc
ted
in
acc
orda
nce
with
that
pro
visio
n a
full
and
ex n
unca
sses
smen
t of t
he in
tern
atio
nal p
rote
ctio
n ne
eds
of th
e ap
plic
ant b
y vi
rtue
of D
irect
ive
2011
95
that
bod
y co
uld
take
a d
ecisi
on th
at ra
n co
unte
r to
that
as
sess
men
t or c
ould
allo
w a
con
sider
able
per
iod
of ti
me
to e
laps
e w
hich
cou
ld in
crea
se th
e ris
k th
at
evid
ence
requ
iring
a n
ew u
p-to
-dat
e as
sess
men
t mig
ht a
rise
rsquo
CJEU
Ahm
edbe
kova
C-65
216
EUC
201
880
1
041
020
18
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ns th
e in
terp
reta
tion
of D
irect
ive
2011
95
EU o
f theEu
rope
anParliamen
tand
ofthe
Cou
ncilof13 De
cembe
r201
1on
stan
dardsforth
equ
alificatio
nofth
ird-
coun
try
natio
nals
or st
atel
ess p
erso
ns a
s ben
efici
arie
s of i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n fo
r a u
nifo
rm st
atus
for
refu
gees
or f
or p
erso
ns e
ligib
le fo
r sub
sidia
ry p
rote
ctio
n a
nd fo
r the
cont
ent o
f the
pro
tect
ion
gran
ted
Stan
dard
s for
the
qual
ifica
tion
of th
ird-c
ount
ry n
atio
nals
or st
atel
ess p
erso
ns a
s ben
efic
iarie
s of
inte
rnat
iona
l pro
tect
ion
mdash D
irect
ive
2011
95
EU mdash
Art
icle
s 3 4
10
and
23 mdash
App
licat
ions
for
inte
rnat
iona
l pro
tect
ion
lodg
ed se
para
tely
by
fam
ily m
embe
rs mdash
Indi
vidu
al a
sses
smen
t mdash T
akin
g in
to
acco
unt t
hrea
ts in
resp
ect o
f a fa
mily
mem
ber i
n ca
rryi
ng o
ut th
e in
divi
dual
ass
essm
ent o
f the
app
licat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n of
ano
ther
fam
ily m
embe
r mdash M
ore
favo
urab
le st
anda
rds c
apab
le o
f bei
ng
reta
ined
or i
ntro
duce
d by
the
Mem
ber S
tate
s for
the
purp
ose
of e
xten
ding
the
refu
gee
or su
bsid
iary
pr
otec
tion
stat
us o
f a b
enef
icia
ry o
f int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
to fa
mily
mem
bers
mdash A
sses
smen
t of t
he
reas
ons f
or p
erse
cutio
n mdash
Invo
lvem
ent o
f an
Azer
baija
ni n
atio
nal i
n br
ingi
ng a
com
plai
nt a
gain
st h
er
coun
try
befo
re th
e Eu
rope
an C
ourt
of H
uman
Rig
hts mdash
Com
mon
pro
cedu
ral s
tand
ards
Para
94
lsquo94
Alth
ough
it th
us fo
llow
s fro
m A
rticl
e 46
(3) o
f Dire
ctive
201
332
that
the
Mem
ber S
tate
s are
requ
ired
to
amen
d th
eir n
atio
nal la
w in
such
a w
ay th
at th
e pr
oces
sing
of th
e ap
peal
s ref
erre
d to
inclu
des a
n ex
amin
atio
n
by th
e co
urt o
r trib
unal
of a
ll the
fact
s and
poi
nts o
f law
nec
essa
ry in
ord
er to
mak
e an
up-
to-d
ate
asse
ssm
ent
ofth
ecaseath
and(ju
dgmento
f25 July2018A
lhet
o C
-585
16
EU
C20
185
84 p
arag
raph
110
) it
does
not
fo
llow
by
cont
rast
tha
t an
appl
icant
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n m
ay w
ithou
t it b
eing
subj
ect t
o a
furt
her
asse
ssm
ent b
y th
e de
term
inin
g au
thor
ity m
odify
the
grou
nd fo
r his
appl
icatio
n an
d th
ereb
y th
e co
nfig
urat
ion
of th
e fa
cts o
f the
case
by
rely
ing
in a
n ap
peal
pro
cedu
re o
n a
grou
nd fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
whi
ch
whi
lst re
latin
g to
eve
nts o
r thr
eats
whi
ch a
llege
dly
took
pla
ce b
efor
e th
e ad
optio
n of
that
aut
horit
yrsquos d
ecisi
on
or e
ven
befo
re th
e ap
plica
tion
was
lodg
ed w
ere
not m
entio
ned
befo
re th
at a
utho
rityrsquo
FC-4731625 Janu
ary
2018
Y an
d Z
[201
2]
C-71
11
and
C-99
11
5 Septem
ber2
012
Alhe
toC-5851625 July
2018
Moh
amed
MrsquoB
odj
v Eacutet
at b
elge
C-5
421
3
18 Decem
ber2
018
B an
d D
C-5
709
and
C-101099 Novem
ber
2010
X an
d O
ther
s C-
199
12 to
C-2
011
2
7 No
vembe
r2013
44 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
s 9
7-99
lsquo97
Tha
t vita
l sta
ge b
efor
e th
e de
term
inin
g au
thor
ity w
ould
be
circ
umve
nted
if th
e ap
plic
ant w
ere
w
ithou
t any
pro
cedu
ral c
onse
quen
ces
allo
wed
to re
ly fo
r the
pur
pose
s of h
avin
g a
cour
t ann
ul o
r rep
lace
th
e de
cisio
n of
refu
sal a
dopt
ed b
y th
at a
utho
rity
on
a gr
ound
of i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n w
hich
whi
lst
rela
ting
to a
llege
dly
ante
date
d ev
ents
or t
hrea
ts w
as n
ot ra
ised
befo
re th
at a
utho
rity
and
coul
d no
t th
eref
ore
be e
xam
ined
by
it
98 A
ccor
ding
ly w
here
one
of t
he g
roun
ds fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
refe
rred
to in
par
agra
ph 9
5 ab
ove
is in
voke
d fo
r the
firs
t tim
e in
an
appe
al p
roce
dure
and
rela
tes t
o al
lege
d ev
ents
or t
hrea
ts a
nted
atin
g th
e ad
optio
n of
that
dec
ision
or e
ven
the
lodg
ing
of th
e ap
plic
atio
n fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
that
gro
und
mus
t be
rega
rded
as a
lsquofur
ther
repr
esen
tatio
nrsquo w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 4
0(1)
of D
irect
ive
2013
32
As
follo
ws f
rom
that
pro
visio
n su
ch a
cha
ract
erisa
tion
mea
ns th
at th
e co
urt b
efor
e w
hich
the
appe
al h
as
been
bro
ught
is re
quire
d to
con
sider
that
gro
und
in th
e co
urse
of i
ts e
xam
inat
ion
of th
e de
cisio
n ag
ains
t w
hich
the
appe
al h
as b
een
brou
ght
prov
ided
non
ethe
less
that
eac
h of
the
lsquocom
pete
nt a
utho
ritie
srsquo w
hich
in
clud
es n
ot o
nly
that
cou
rt b
ut a
lso th
e de
term
inin
g au
thor
ity h
as th
e op
port
unity
to a
sses
s in
that
fr
amew
ork
that
furt
her r
epre
sent
atio
n
99 I
n or
der t
o de
term
ine
whe
ther
that
cou
rt it
self
is ab
le to
ass
ess t
hat f
urth
er re
pres
enta
tion
in th
e co
urse
of t
he a
ctio
n it
is fo
r the
cou
rt to
asc
erta
in i
n ac
cord
ance
with
the
rule
s of p
roce
dure
laid
dow
n by
na
tiona
l law
whe
ther
the
grou
nd fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
relie
d on
for t
he fi
rst t
ime
befo
re it
has
not
be
en in
clud
ed in
a la
ter p
hase
of t
he a
ppea
l pro
cedu
re a
nd h
as b
een
pres
ente
d in
a su
ffici
ently
spec
ific
man
ner f
or it
to b
e du
ly c
onsid
ered
rsquo
Para
s 1
02-1
03
lsquo102
If
whi
ch it
is fo
r the
refe
rrin
g co
urt a
lone
to a
scer
tain
Mrs
Ahm
edbe
kova
add
ed d
urin
g th
e ap
peal
pr
oced
ure
not a
gro
und
of in
tern
atio
nal p
rote
ctio
n bu
t fur
ther
evi
denc
e in
supp
ort o
f a re
ason
whi
ch w
as
relie
d on
bef
ore
and
reje
cted
by
the
dete
rmin
ing
auth
ority
in
such
a c
ase
it is
for t
he c
ourt
bef
ore
whi
ch
the
actio
n ha
s bee
n br
ough
t to
asce
rtai
n w
heth
er th
e ev
iden
ce re
lied
on fo
r the
firs
t tim
e be
fore
it is
sig
nific
ant a
nd d
oes n
ot o
verla
p w
ith th
e ev
iden
ce w
hich
the
dete
rmin
ing
auth
ority
was
abl
e to
take
into
ac
coun
t If
so t
he c
onsid
erat
ions
set o
ut in
par
agra
phs 9
7 to
100
abo
ve a
pply
-mut
atis
mut
andi
s
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 45
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo103
In
the
light
of t
he fo
rego
ing
the
answ
er to
the
eigh
th q
uest
ion
is th
at A
rtic
le 4
6(3)
of D
irect
ive
2013
32
read
in c
onju
nctio
n w
ith th
e re
fere
nce
to th
e ap
peal
pro
cedu
re c
onta
ined
in A
rtic
le 4
0(1)
of
that
dire
ctiv
e m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
d as
mea
ning
that
a c
ourt
bef
ore
whi
ch a
n ac
tion
has b
een
brou
ght
agai
nst a
dec
ision
refu
sing
inte
rnat
iona
l pro
tect
ion
is in
prin
cipl
e re
quire
d to
exa
min
e a
s lsquofu
rthe
r re
pres
enta
tions
rsquo and
hav
ing
aske
d th
e de
term
inin
g au
thor
ity fo
r an
asse
ssm
ent o
f tho
se re
pres
enta
tions
gr
ound
s for
gra
ntin
g in
tern
atio
nal p
rote
ctio
n or
evi
denc
e w
hich
whi
lst re
latin
g to
eve
nts o
r thr
eats
w
hich
alle
gedl
y to
ok p
lace
bef
ore
the
adop
tion
of th
e de
cisio
n of
refu
sal
or e
ven
befo
re th
e ap
plic
atio
n fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
was
lodg
ed h
ave
been
relie
d on
for t
he fi
rst t
ime
durin
g th
ose
proc
eedi
ngs
Th
at c
ourt
is n
ot h
owev
er r
equi
red
to d
o so
if it
find
s tha
t tho
se g
roun
ds o
r evi
denc
e w
ere
relie
d on
in
a la
te st
age
of th
e ap
peal
pro
ceed
ings
or a
re n
ot p
rese
nted
in a
suffi
cien
tly sp
ecifi
c m
anne
r to
be d
uly
cons
ider
ed o
r in
resp
ect o
f evi
denc
e it
find
s tha
t tha
t evi
denc
e is
not s
igni
fican
t or i
nsuf
ficie
ntly
dist
inct
fr
om e
vide
nce
whi
ch th
e de
term
inin
g au
thor
ity w
as a
lread
y ab
le to
take
into
acc
ount
rsquo
CJEU
Ayub
i v
Bezir
ksha
uptm
anns
chaf
t Lin
z-La
nd
C-71
317
EUC
201
892
9
211
120
18
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ns th
e in
terp
reta
tion
of A
rtic
le 2
9 of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
1195EU
ofthe
Europ
eanParliam
enta
ndofthe
Cou
ncilof13 De
cembe
r201
1on
stan
dardsforth
equ
alifi
catio
n of
third
-cou
ntry
nat
iona
ls or
stat
eles
s per
sons
as b
enef
icia
ries o
f int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
for
a un
iform
stat
us fo
r ref
ugee
s or f
or p
erso
ns e
ligib
le fo
r sub
sidia
ry p
rote
ctio
n a
nd fo
r the
con
tent
of t
he
prot
ectio
n gr
ante
d
Dire
ctiv
e 20
119
5EU
mdash R
ules
rela
ting
to th
e co
nten
t of i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n mdash
Ref
ugee
stat
us mdash
So
cial
pro
tect
ion
mdash D
iffer
ent t
reat
men
t mdash R
efug
es w
ith te
mpo
rary
righ
t of r
esid
ence
Para
24
lsquo24
Sec
ond
con
ferr
ing
such
an
optio
n on
the
Mem
ber S
tate
s with
rega
rd to
the
bene
fits g
rant
ed to
re
fuge
es w
ould
be
inco
mpa
tible
with
the
prin
cipl
e th
at p
erso
ns e
ntitl
ed to
subs
idia
ry p
rote
ctio
n sh
ould
be
acc
orde
d th
e sa
me
trea
tmen
t with
resp
ect t
o pu
blic
relie
f and
ass
istan
ce a
s pro
vide
d to
nat
iona
ls of
th
at M
embe
r Sta
te la
id d
own
in A
rtic
le 2
3 of
the
Gene
va C
onve
ntio
n in
the
light
of w
hich
Art
icle
29
of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
119
5 m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
drsquo
Alo
and
Oss
o C
-443
14
andC-444141 M
arch
2016
HTC-3731324 June
20
15
Dom
ingu
ez C
-282
10
24 Janu
ary2012
Suumlruuml
lC-262964 M
ay
1999
Gavi
eiro
Gav
ieiro
an
d Ig
liesia
s Tor
res
C-44
409
and
C-4
560
9
22 Decem
ber2
010
Napo
li C
-595
12
6 March2014
H C
-174
16
7 Septem
ber2
017
46 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
25
lsquo25
It f
ollo
ws t
hat t
he le
vel o
f soc
ial s
ecur
ity b
enef
its p
aid
to re
fuge
es b
y th
e M
embe
r Sta
te w
hich
gr
ante
d th
at st
atus
whe
ther
tem
pora
ry o
r per
man
ent
mus
t be
the
sam
e as
that
offe
red
to n
atio
nals
of
that
Mem
ber S
tate
rsquo
Para
29
lsquo29
It f
ollo
ws f
rom
the
fore
goin
g th
at re
fuge
es w
ho h
ave
a re
siden
ce p
erm
it lim
ited
to th
ree
year
s mus
t be
ent
itled
to th
e sa
me
leve
l of s
ocia
l ass
istan
ce a
s tha
t pro
vide
d to
nat
iona
ls of
the
Mem
ber S
tate
whi
ch
gran
ted
them
refu
gee
stat
usrsquo
CJEU
MA
and
Oth
ers
v In
tern
atio
nal
Prot
ectio
n Ap
peal
Tr
ibun
al a
nd O
ther
s
C-66
117
EUC
201
953
230
120
19
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
s 6 a
nd 1
7
Artic
le 2
0(3)
and
Art
icle
27(
1) o
f Reg
ulat
ion
(EU
) No
604
2013
of t
he E
urop
ean
Parli
amen
t and
of t
he
Coun
cilo
f26 June
201
3establish
ingthecrite
riaand
mecha
nism
sfordeterminingtheMem
berS
tate
resp
onsib
le fo
r exa
min
ing
an a
pplic
atio
n fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
lodg
ed in
one
of t
he M
embe
r Sta
tes
by a
third
-cou
ntry
nat
iona
l or a
stat
eles
s per
son
Asyl
um p
olic
y mdash
Crit
eria
and
mec
hani
sms f
or d
eter
min
ing
the
Mem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
le fo
r exa
min
ing
an a
pplic
atio
n fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
mdash R
egul
atio
n (E
U) N
o 60
420
13 mdash
Disc
retio
nary
cla
uses
mdash
Asse
ssm
ent c
riter
ia
Para
59
lsquo59
In th
e lig
ht o
f the
ext
ent o
f the
disc
retio
n th
us c
onfe
rred
on
the
Mem
ber S
tate
s it
is fo
r the
Mem
ber
Stat
e co
ncer
ned
to d
eter
min
e th
e ci
rcum
stan
ces i
n w
hich
it w
ishes
to u
se th
e op
tion
conf
erre
d by
the
disc
retio
nary
cla
use
set o
ut in
Art
icle
17(
1) o
f the
Dub
lin II
I Reg
ulat
ion
and
to a
gree
itse
lf to
exa
min
e an
ap
plic
atio
n fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
for w
hich
it is
not
resp
onsib
le u
nder
the
crite
ria d
efin
ed b
y th
at
regu
latio
nrsquo
Para
s 7
0-72
lsquo70
By
its th
ird q
uest
ion
the
refe
rrin
g co
urt a
sks
in e
ssen
ce w
heth
er A
rtic
le 6
(1) o
f the
Dub
lin II
I Re
gula
tion
mus
t be
inte
rpre
ted
as m
eani
ng th
at it
requ
ires a
Mem
ber S
tate
whi
ch is
not
resp
onsib
le
unde
r the
crit
eria
set o
ut b
y th
at re
gula
tion
for e
xam
inin
g an
app
licat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n to
ta
ke in
to a
ccou
nt th
e be
st in
tere
sts o
f the
chi
ld a
nd to
itse
lf ex
amin
e th
at a
pplic
atio
n u
nder
Art
icle
17(
1)
of th
at re
gula
tion
Poho
tovosť C
-470
12
27 Fe
bruary2014
Euro
sane
amie
ntos
and
O
ther
s C-
532
15 a
nd
C-538158 Decem
ber
2016
RO C
-327
18
PPU
19 Sep
tembe
r2018
CK a
nd O
ther
s v
Repu
blika
Slo
veni
ja
C-57
816
PPU
16 Fe
bruary2017
Hala
fC-5281130 May
2013
Fath
i C-
561
7
4 Octob
er2018
Abdu
llahi
C-3
941
2
10 Decem
ber2
013
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 47
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo71
Giv
en th
at it
is a
lread
y ap
pare
nt fr
om p
arag
raph
s 58
and
59 o
f the
pre
sent
judg
men
t tha
t the
exe
rcise
of
the
optio
n af
ford
ed to
Mem
ber S
tate
s by
the
disc
retio
nary
cla
use
set o
ut in
Art
icle
17(
1) o
f the
Dub
lin
III R
egul
atio
n is
not s
ubje
ct to
any
par
ticul
ar c
ondi
tion
and
that
in
prin
cipl
e it
is fo
r eac
h M
embe
r Sta
te to
de
term
ine
the
circ
umst
ance
s in
whi
ch it
wish
es to
use
that
opt
ion
and
to a
gree
that
it w
ill it
self
exam
ine
an a
pplic
atio
n fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
for w
hich
it is
not
resp
onsib
le u
nder
the
crite
ria d
efin
ed b
y th
at
regu
latio
n it
mus
t be
held
that
con
sider
atio
ns re
latin
g to
the
best
inte
rest
s of t
he c
hild
can
also
not
obl
ige
a M
embe
r Sta
te to
use
that
opt
ion
and
itsel
f exa
min
e an
app
licat
ion
for w
hich
it is
not
resp
onsib
le
lsquo72
It fo
llow
s tha
t Art
icle
6(1
) of t
he D
ublin
III R
egul
atio
n m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
d as
mea
ning
that
it d
oes
not r
equi
re a
Mem
ber S
tate
whi
ch is
not
resp
onsib
le u
nder
the
crite
ria se
t out
by
that
regu
latio
n fo
r ex
amin
ing
an a
pplic
atio
n fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
to ta
ke in
to a
ccou
nt th
e be
st in
tere
sts o
f the
chi
ld
and
to it
self
exam
ine
that
app
licat
ion
und
er A
rtic
le 1
7(1)
of t
hat r
egul
atio
nrsquo
Para
76
lsquo76
Fur
ther
mor
e th
e ob
ject
ive
of th
e ra
pid
proc
essin
g of
app
licat
ions
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n an
d in
pa
rtic
ular
the
det
erm
inat
ion
of th
e M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
und
erly
ing
the
proc
edur
e es
tabl
ished
by
the
Dubl
in II
I Reg
ulat
ion
and
refe
rred
to in
reci
tal 5
of t
hat r
egul
atio
n d
iscou
rage
s mul
tiple
rem
edie
srsquo
Para
79
lsquo79
Con
sequ
ently
Art
icle
27(
1) o
f the
Dub
lin II
I Reg
ulat
ion
mus
t be
inte
rpre
ted
as m
eani
ng th
at it
do
es n
ot re
quire
a re
med
y to
be
mad
e av
aila
ble
agai
nst t
he d
ecisi
on n
ot to
use
the
optio
n se
t out
in
Artic
le 1
7(1)
of t
hat r
egul
atio
n w
ithou
t pre
judi
ce to
the
fact
that
that
dec
ision
may
be
chal
leng
ed a
t the
tim
e of
an
appe
al a
gain
st a
tran
sfer
dec
ision
rsquo
Para
s 8
8-90
lsquo88
It m
ust b
e no
ted
that
it is
cle
ar fr
om th
e w
ordi
ng o
f Art
icle
20(
3) o
f the
Dub
lin II
I Reg
ulat
ion
that
th
at is
the
case
Con
sequ
ently
it i
s onl
y w
here
it is
est
ablis
hed
that
such
an
exam
inat
ion
carr
ied
out i
n co
njun
ctio
n w
ith th
at o
f the
chi
ldrsquos
pare
nts i
s not
in th
e be
st in
tere
sts o
f tha
t chi
ld th
at it
will
be
nece
ssar
y to
trea
t the
chi
ldrsquos
situa
tion
sepa
rate
ly fr
om th
at o
f its
par
ents
lsquo89
Tha
t fin
ding
is c
onsis
tent
with
reci
tals
14 to
16
and
int
er a
lia A
rtic
le 6
(3)(a
) and
(4)
Artic
le 8
(1)
and
Artic
le 1
1 of
the
Dubl
in II
I Reg
ulat
ion
It fo
llow
s fro
m th
ose
prov
ision
s tha
t res
pect
for f
amily
life
and
m
ore
spec
ifica
lly p
rese
rvin
g th
e un
ity o
f the
fam
ily g
roup
is a
s a g
ener
al ru
le i
n th
e be
st in
tere
sts o
f the
ch
ild
XC-213175 Ju
ly2018
Tele
foacuteni
ca a
nd
Tele
foacuteni
ca d
e Es
pantildea
v
Com
miss
ion
C-29512P10 July2014
NS v
Sec
reta
ry o
f St
ate
for t
he H
ome
Depa
rtm
ent a
nd
ME
and
Oth
ers
v Re
fuge
e Ap
plica
tions
Co
mm
issio
ner a
nd
Min
ister
for J
ustic
e
Equa
lity
and
Law
Re
form
C-4
111
0 an
d C-4931021 De
cembe
r20
11
48 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo90
In th
e lig
ht o
f all
of th
e fo
rego
ing
cons
ider
atio
ns t
he a
nsw
er to
the
fifth
que
stio
n is
that
Art
icle
20(
3)
of th
e Du
blin
III R
egul
atio
n m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
d as
mea
ning
that
in
the
abse
nce
of e
vide
nce
to th
e co
ntra
ry t
hat p
rovi
sion
esta
blish
es a
pre
sum
ptio
n th
at it
is in
the
best
inte
rest
s of t
he c
hild
to tr
eat t
hat
child
rsquos sit
uatio
n as
indi
ssoc
iabl
e fr
om th
at o
f its
par
ents
rsquo
CJEU
E v
Staa
tsse
cret
aris
van
Ve
iligh
eid
en Ju
stiti
e
C-63
517
EUC
201
919
2
130
320
19
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
3(2
)(c) a
nd
Artic
le11(2)ofC
ouncilDirective20
0386EC
of2
2 Septem
ber2
003on
therig
htto
familyre
unificatio
n
Dire
ctiv
e 20
038
6EC
mdash E
xclu
sions
from
the
scop
e of
the
dire
ctiv
e mdash
Art
icle
3(2
)(c) mdash
Exc
lusio
n of
pe
rson
s ben
efiti
ng fr
om su
bsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
mdash E
xten
sion
of th
e rig
ht to
fam
ily re
unifi
catio
n to
thos
e pe
rson
s und
er n
atio
nal l
aw mdash
Juris
dict
ion
of th
e Co
urt mdash
Art
icle
11(
2) mdash
Lac
k of
offi
cial
doc
umen
tary
ev
iden
ce o
f the
fam
ily re
latio
nshi
p mdash
Exp
lana
tions
rega
rded
as i
nsuf
ficie
ntly
pla
usib
le mdash
Obl
igat
ions
on
the
auth
oriti
es o
f the
Mem
ber S
tate
s to
take
add
ition
al st
eps mdash
Lim
its
Para
s 5
7-59
lsquo57
In th
at re
gard
it i
s for
the
com
pete
nt n
atio
nal a
utho
ritie
s to
mak
e a
bala
nced
and
reas
onab
le
asse
ssm
ent o
f all
the
inte
rest
s in
play
tak
ing
part
icul
ar a
ccou
nt o
f the
inte
rest
s of t
he c
hild
ren
conc
erne
d (ju
dgmen
tof6
Decem
ber2
012O
and
Oth
ers
C-3
561
1 an
d C-
357
11 E
UC
201
277
6 p
arag
raph
81)
lsquo58
Reg
ard
mus
t also
be
had
to A
rtic
le 1
7 of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
038
6 w
hich
requ
ires a
pplic
atio
ns fo
r fam
ily
reun
ificatio
ntobeexam
ined
onacase-by-casebasis(ju
dgmen
tsof9
July201
5K
and
A C
-153
14
EU
C201
545
3paragraph
60and
of2
1 Ap
ril201
6K
hach
ab C
-558
14
EU
C2
016
285
par
agra
ph 4
3)
whi
ch m
ust t
ake
due
acco
unt o
f the
nat
ure
and
solid
ity o
f the
per
sonrsquo
s fam
ily re
latio
nshi
ps a
nd th
e du
ratio
n of
his
resid
ence
in th
e M
embe
r Sta
te a
nd o
f the
exi
sten
ce o
f fam
ily c
ultu
ral a
nd so
cial
ties
with
hiscoun
tryoforig
in(jud
gmen
tof2
7 June
200
6P
arlia
men
t v C
ounc
il C
-540
03
EU
C2
006
429
pa
ragr
aph
64)
lsquo59
Con
sequ
ently
it i
s for
the
com
pete
nt n
atio
nal a
utho
ritie
s w
hen
impl
emen
ting
Dire
ctiv
e 20
038
6 an
d ex
amin
ing
appl
icat
ions
for f
amily
reun
ifica
tion
to m
ake
inte
r alia
a c
ase-
by-c
ase
asse
ssm
ent w
hich
ta
kes a
ccou
nt o
f all
the
rele
vant
asp
ects
of t
he p
artic
ular
cas
e an
d w
here
app
ropr
iate
pay
s par
ticul
ar
atte
ntio
n to
the
inte
rest
s of t
he c
hild
ren
conc
erne
d an
d w
ith a
vie
w to
pro
mot
ing
fam
ily li
fe I
n pa
rtic
ular
ci
rcum
stan
ces s
uch
as th
e ag
e of
the
child
ren
conc
erne
d th
eir c
ircum
stan
ces i
n th
e co
untr
y of
orig
in a
nd
the
exte
nt to
whi
ch th
ey a
re d
epen
dent
on
rela
tives
are
liab
le to
influ
ence
the
exte
nt a
nd in
tens
ity o
f theexam
inationrequ
ired(see
tothateffe
ctjud
gmen
tof2
7 June
200
6P
arlia
men
t v C
ounc
il C
-540
03
EU
C2
006
429
par
agra
ph 5
6) I
n an
y ev
ent
as st
ated
in p
arag
raph
61
of t
he G
uide
lines
no
fact
or ta
ken
sepa
rate
ly m
ay a
utom
atic
ally
lead
to a
dec
ision
rsquo
Nola
n C
-583
10
18 Octob
er2012
K an
d B
C-3
801
7
7 No
vembe
r2018
C an
d A
C-2
571
7
7 No
vembe
r2018
O a
nd O
ther
s C-
356
11
and
C-35
711
6 De
cembe
r2012
Parli
amen
t v C
ounc
il
C-5400327 June
2006
Detiček C
-403
09
PPU
23 Decem
ber2
009
K an
d AC-153149 Ju
ly
2015
Khac
hab
C-5
581
4
21 April2
016
K C
-18
16
14 Sep
tembe
r2017
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 49
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
[GC]
Abub
acar
r Jaw
o ge
gen
Bund
esre
publ
ik
Deut
schl
and
C-16
317
EUC
201
921
8
190
320
19
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ns th
e in
terp
reta
tion
of A
rtic
le 3
(2) a
nd
Artic
le 2
9(1)
and
(2) o
f Reg
ulat
ion
(EU
) No
604
2013
of t
he E
urop
ean
Parli
amen
t and
of t
he C
ounc
il of
26
June
201
3establish
ingthecrite
riaand
mecha
nism
sfordeterminingtheMem
berS
tatere
spon
sible
for e
xam
inin
g an
app
licat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n lo
dged
in o
ne o
f the
Mem
ber S
tate
s by
a th
ird-
coun
try
natio
nal o
r a st
atel
ess p
erso
n a
nd A
rtic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
er o
f Fun
dam
enta
l Rig
hts o
f the
Eur
opea
n U
nion
Area
of f
reed
om s
ecur
ity a
nd ju
stic
e mdash
Dub
lin sy
stem
mdash R
egul
atio
n (E
U) N
o 60
420
13 mdash
Tra
nsfe
r of
the
asyl
um se
eker
to th
e M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
for e
xam
inin
g th
e ap
plic
atio
n fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pr
otec
tion
mdash C
once
pt o
f lsquoab
scon
ding
rsquo mdash M
odal
ities
of e
xten
ding
the
time
limit
for t
rans
fer mdash
Art
icle
4
of th
e Ch
arte
r of F
unda
men
tal R
ight
s of t
he E
urop
ean
Uni
on mdash
Sub
stan
tial r
isk o
f inh
uman
or d
egra
ding
tr
eatm
ent o
n co
mpl
etio
n of
the
asyl
um p
roce
dure
mdash L
ivin
g co
nditi
ons o
f ben
efic
iarie
s of i
nter
natio
nal
prot
ectio
n in
that
Mem
ber S
tate
Para
78
lsquo78
Mor
eove
r it
is se
ttle
d ca
se-la
w th
at th
e pr
ovisi
ons o
f the
Dub
lin II
I Reg
ulat
ion
mus
t be
inte
rpre
ted
and
appl
ied
in a
man
ner c
onsis
tent
with
the
fund
amen
tal r
ight
s gua
rant
eed
by th
e Ch
arte
r in
ter a
lia
Artic
le 4
ther
eof
whi
ch p
rohi
bits
with
out a
ny p
ossib
ility
of d
erog
atio
n in
hum
an o
r deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent
in a
ll its
form
s and
is t
here
fore
of f
unda
men
tal i
mpo
rtan
ce a
nd is
gen
eral
and
abs
olut
e in
that
it is
cl
osel
y lin
ked
to re
spec
t for
hum
an d
igni
ty w
hich
is th
e su
bjec
t of A
rtic
le 1
of t
he C
hart
errsquo
Para
s 8
0-83
lsquo80
In
the
seco
nd p
lace
it s
houl
d be
reca
lled
that
EU
law
is b
ased
on
the
fund
amen
tal p
rem
iss th
at
each
Mem
ber S
tate
shar
es w
ith a
ll th
e ot
her M
embe
r Sta
tes
and
reco
gnise
s tha
t the
y sh
are
with
it
a se
t of c
omm
on v
alue
s on
whi
ch th
e Eu
rope
an U
nion
is fo
unde
d a
s sta
ted
in A
rtic
le 2
TEU
Tha
t pr
emiss
impl
ies a
nd ju
stifi
es th
e ex
isten
ce o
f mut
ual t
rust
bet
wee
n th
e M
embe
r Sta
tes t
hat t
hose
val
ues
will
be
reco
gnise
d a
nd th
eref
ore
that
the
EU la
w th
at im
plem
ents
them
will
be
resp
ecte
d (ju
dgm
ent
of25 July201
8M
inist
er fo
r Jus
tice
and
Equa
lity
(Def
icie
ncie
s in
the
syst
em o
f jus
tice)
C-2
161
8 PP
U
EUC
201
858
6 p
arag
raph
35
and
the
case
-law
cite
d) a
nd th
at th
eir n
atio
nal l
egal
syst
ems a
re c
apab
le
of p
rovi
ding
equ
ival
ent a
nd e
ffect
ive
prot
ectio
n of
the
fund
amen
tal r
ight
s rec
ogni
sed
by th
e Ch
arte
r pa
rtic
ular
ly A
rtic
les 1
and
4 th
ereo
f w
hich
ens
hrin
e on
e of
the
fund
amen
tal v
alue
s of t
he U
nion
and
its
Mem
ber S
tate
s
DOCE
RAM
C-3
951
6
8 March2018
Mig
ratio
nsve
rket
v
Edga
r Pet
rosia
n an
d O
ther
s C-
190
8
29 Janu
ary2009
Shiri
C-2
011
6
25 Octob
er2017
NS a
nd O
ther
s C-
411
10 a
nd C
-493
10
21 Decem
ber2
011
CK a
nd O
ther
s C-
578
16 P
PU
16 Fe
bruary2017
Aranyosi an
d Că
ldăraru
C-
404
15 a
nd
C-65915PPU
5 April
2016
Min
ister
for J
ustic
e an
d Eq
ualit
y (D
efici
encie
s in
the
syst
em o
f jus
tice)
C-21618PPU
25 July
2018
ECtH
R M
SS v
Bel
gium
an
d Gr
eece
[GC
] no
306960921 Janu
ary
2011
50 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo81
The
prin
cipl
e of
mut
ual t
rust
bet
wee
n th
e M
embe
r Sta
tes i
s in
EU
law
of f
unda
men
tal i
mpo
rtan
ce
give
n th
at it
allo
ws a
n ar
ea w
ithou
t int
erna
l bor
ders
to b
e cr
eate
d an
d m
aint
aine
d M
ore
spec
ifica
lly
the
prin
cipl
e of
mut
ual t
rust
requ
ires
par
ticul
arly
as r
egar
ds th
e ar
ea o
f fre
edom
sec
urity
and
just
ice
ea
ch o
f tho
se S
tate
s sa
ve in
exc
eptio
nal c
ircum
stan
ces
to c
onsid
er a
ll th
e ot
her M
embe
r Sta
tes t
o be
co
mpl
ying
with
EU
law
and
par
ticul
arly
with
the
fund
amen
tal r
ight
s rec
ogni
sed
by E
U la
w (s
ee t
o th
at
effectjud
gmen
tsof5
April20
16A
ranyosi and
Căldă
raru
C-4
041
5 an
d C-
659
15 P
PU E
UC
201
619
8
paragrap
h78
and
of2
5 July201
8M
inist
er fo
r Jus
tice
and
Equa
lity
lsquo82
Acc
ordi
ngly
in th
e co
ntex
t of t
he C
omm
on E
urop
ean
Asyl
um S
yste
m a
nd in
par
ticul
ar th
e Du
blin
III
Regu
latio
n w
hich
is b
ased
on
the
prin
cipl
e of
mut
ual t
rust
and
whi
ch a
ims
by
stre
amlin
ing
appl
icat
ions
fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
to a
ccel
erat
e th
eir p
roce
ssin
g in
the
inte
rest
bot
h of
app
lican
ts a
nd
part
icip
atin
g St
ates
it m
ust b
e pr
esum
ed th
at th
e tr
eatm
ent o
f app
lican
ts fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
in
all M
embe
r Sta
tes c
ompl
ies w
ith th
e re
quire
men
ts o
f the
Cha
rter
the
Con
vent
ion
rela
ting
to th
e St
atus
ofRefug
eessign
edin
Gen
evaon
28 July195
1(U
nite
d N
atio
ns T
reat
y Se
ries
Vol
189
p 1
50 N
o 25
45
(195
4))
and
the
ECHR
lsquo83
It i
s not
how
ever
inco
ncei
vabl
e th
at th
at sy
stem
may
in
prac
tice
exp
erie
nce
maj
or o
pera
tiona
l pr
oble
ms i
n a
give
n M
embe
r Sta
te m
eani
ng th
at th
ere
is a
subs
tant
ial r
isk th
at a
pplic
ants
for
inte
rnat
iona
l pro
tect
ion
may
whe
n tr
ansf
erre
d to
that
Mem
ber S
tate
be
trea
ted
in a
man
ner
inco
mpa
tible
with
thei
r fun
dam
enta
l rig
htsrsquo
Para
s 8
6 -8
8
lsquo86
The
seco
nd a
nd th
ird su
bpar
agra
phs o
f Art
icle
3(2
) of t
he D
ublin
III R
egul
atio
n w
hich
cod
ified
that
ca
se-la
w st
ate
that
in
such
a si
tuat
ion
the
dete
rmin
ing
Mem
ber S
tate
bec
omes
the
Mem
ber S
tate
re
spon
sible
for e
xam
inin
g th
e ap
plic
atio
n fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
if it
finds
fol
low
ing
exam
inat
ion
of
the
crite
ria se
t out
in C
hapt
er II
I of t
hat r
egul
atio
n th
at th
e tr
ansf
er c
anno
t be
mad
e to
any
Mem
ber S
tate
de
signa
ted
on th
e ba
sis o
f tho
se c
riter
ia o
r to
the
first
Mem
ber S
tate
in w
hich
the
appl
icat
ion
was
lodg
ed
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 51
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo87
Alth
ough
the
seco
nd su
bpar
agra
ph o
f Art
icle
3(2
) of t
he D
ublin
III R
egul
atio
n en
visa
ges o
nly
the
situa
tionun
derly
ingthejudg
men
tof2
1 De
cembe
r201
1N
S a
nd O
ther
s (C-
411
10 a
nd C
-493
10
EU
C2
011
865)
nam
ely
that
in w
hich
the
real
risk
of i
nhum
an o
r deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent
with
in th
e m
eani
ng o
f Art
icle
4 o
f the
Cha
rter
ste
ms f
rom
syst
emic
flaw
s in
the
asyl
um p
roce
dure
and
the
rece
ptio
n co
nditi
ons o
f app
lican
ts fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
in th
e M
embe
r Sta
te w
hich
pur
suan
t to
that
regu
latio
n is
des
igna
ted
as re
spon
sible
for e
xam
inin
g th
e ap
plic
atio
n it
is n
ever
thel
ess a
ppar
ent
from
par
agra
phs 8
3 an
d 84
of t
he p
rese
nt ju
dgm
ent a
nd fr
om th
e ge
nera
l and
abs
olut
e na
ture
of t
he
proh
ibiti
on la
id d
own
in A
rtic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
er th
at th
e tr
ansf
er o
f an
appl
ican
t to
that
Mem
ber S
tate
is
rule
d ou
t in
any
situa
tion
in w
hich
ther
e ar
e su
bsta
ntia
l gro
unds
for b
elie
ving
that
the
appl
ican
t run
s suc
h a
risk
durin
g hi
s tra
nsfe
r or t
here
afte
r
lsquo88
Acc
ordi
ngly
it is
imm
ater
ial
for t
he p
urpo
ses o
f app
lyin
g Ar
ticle
4 o
f the
Cha
rter
whe
ther
it is
at
the
very
mom
ent o
f the
tran
sfer
dur
ing
the
asyl
um p
roce
dure
or f
ollo
win
g it
that
the
pers
on c
once
rned
w
ould
be
expo
sed
bec
ause
of h
is tr
ansf
er to
the
Mem
ber S
tate
that
is re
spon
sible
with
in th
e m
eani
ng o
f th
e Du
blin
III R
egul
atio
n to
a su
bsta
ntia
l risk
of s
uffe
ring
inhu
man
or d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
trsquo
Para
s 9
0-92
lsquo90
In th
at re
gard
whe
re th
e co
urt o
r trib
unal
hea
ring
an a
ctio
n ch
alle
ngin
g a
tran
sfer
dec
ision
has
av
aila
ble
to it
evi
denc
e pr
ovid
ed b
y th
e pe
rson
con
cern
ed fo
r the
pur
pose
s of e
stab
lishi
ng th
e ex
isten
ce
of su
ch a
risk
tha
t cou
rt o
r trib
unal
is o
blig
ed to
ass
ess
on
the
basis
of i
nfor
mat
ion
that
is o
bjec
tive
re
liabl
e sp
ecifi
c an
d pr
oper
ly u
pdat
ed a
nd h
avin
g re
gard
to th
e st
anda
rd o
f pro
tect
ion
of fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts g
uara
ntee
d by
EU
law
whe
ther
ther
e ar
e de
ficie
ncie
s w
hich
may
be
syst
emic
or g
ener
alise
d o
r w
hich
may
affe
ct c
erta
in g
roup
s of p
eopl
e
lsquo91
As r
egar
ds i
n th
e th
ird p
lace
the
que
stio
n of
wha
t crit
eria
shou
ld g
uide
the
com
pete
nt n
atio
nal
auth
oriti
es in
car
ryin
g ou
t tha
t ass
essm
ent
it m
ust b
e no
ted
that
in
orde
r to
fall
with
in th
e sc
ope
of
Artic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
er w
hich
cor
resp
onds
to A
rtic
le 3
ECH
R a
nd o
f whi
ch th
e m
eani
ng a
nd sc
ope
are
ther
efor
e in
acc
orda
nce
with
Art
icle
52(
3) o
f the
Cha
rter
the
sam
e as
thos
e la
id d
own
by th
e EC
HR t
he
defic
ienc
ies r
efer
red
to in
the
prec
edin
g pa
ragr
aph
of th
e pr
esen
t jud
gmen
t mus
t att
ain
a pa
rtic
ular
ly h
igh
leve
l of s
ever
ity w
hich
dep
ends
on
all t
he c
ircum
stan
ces o
f the
cas
e
lsquo92
Tha
t par
ticul
arly
hig
h le
vel o
f sev
erity
is a
ttain
ed w
here
the
indi
ffere
nce
of th
e au
thor
ities
of a
Mem
ber
Stat
e w
ould
resu
lt in
a p
erso
n w
holly
dep
ende
nt o
n St
ate
supp
ort f
indi
ng h
imse
lf ir
resp
ectiv
e of
his
wish
es
and
pers
onal
choi
ces
in a
situ
atio
n of
ext
rem
e m
ater
ial p
over
ty th
at d
oes n
ot a
llow
him
to m
eet h
is m
ost
basic
nee
ds s
uch
as i
nter
alia
foo
d p
erso
nal h
ygie
ne a
nd a
pla
ce to
live
and
that
und
erm
ines
his
phys
ical
or m
enta
l hea
lth o
r put
s him
in a
stat
e of
deg
rada
tion
inco
mpa
tible
with
hum
an d
igni
tyrsquo
52 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
95
lsquo95
Non
ethe
less
it c
anno
t be
entir
ely
rule
d ou
t tha
t an
appl
ican
t for
inte
rnat
iona
l pro
tect
ion
may
be
able
to
dem
onst
rate
the
exist
ence
of e
xcep
tiona
l circ
umst
ance
s tha
t are
uni
que
to h
im a
nd m
ean
that
in
the
even
t of t
rans
fer t
o th
e M
embe
r Sta
te n
orm
ally
resp
onsib
le fo
r pro
cess
ing
his a
pplic
atio
n fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pr
otec
tion
he
wou
ld fi
nd h
imse
lf b
ecau
se o
f his
part
icul
ar v
ulne
rabi
lity
irre
spec
tive
of h
is w
ishes
and
pe
rson
al c
hoic
es i
n a
situa
tion
of e
xtre
me
mat
eria
l pov
erty
mee
ting
the
crite
ria se
t out
in p
arag
raph
s 91
to 9
3 of
the
pres
ent j
udgm
ent a
fter h
avin
g be
en g
rant
ed in
tern
atio
nal p
rote
ctio
nrsquo
Para
98
lsquo98
In th
e lig
ht o
f all
the
fore
goin
g co
nsid
erat
ions
the
ans
wer
to th
e th
ird q
uest
ion
is as
follo
ws
ndash
E
U la
w m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
d as
mea
ning
that
the
ques
tion
whe
ther
Art
icle
4 o
f the
Cha
rter
pre
clud
es
the
tran
sfer
pur
suan
t to
Artic
le 2
9 of
the
Dubl
in II
I Reg
ulat
ion
of a
n ap
plic
ant f
or in
tern
atio
nal p
rote
ctio
n to
the
Mem
ber S
tate
whi
ch i
n ac
cord
ance
with
that
regu
latio
n is
nor
mal
ly re
spon
sible
for e
xam
inin
g hi
s app
licat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n w
here
in
the
even
t of s
uch
prot
ectio
n be
ing
gran
ted
in th
at
Mem
ber S
tate
the
app
lican
t wou
ld b
e ex
pose
d to
a su
bsta
ntia
l risk
of s
uffe
ring
inhu
man
or d
egra
ding
tr
eatm
ent w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
er o
n ac
coun
t of t
he li
ving
con
ditio
ns th
at h
e co
uld
be e
xpec
ted
to e
ncou
nter
as a
ben
efic
iary
of i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n in
that
Mem
ber S
tate
fal
ls w
ithin
its
scop
e
ndash
A
rtic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
er m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
d as
not
pre
clud
ing
such
a tr
ansf
er o
f an
appl
ican
t for
in
tern
atio
nal p
rote
ctio
n u
nles
s the
cou
rt h
earin
g an
act
ion
chal
leng
ing
the
tran
sfer
dec
ision
find
s o
n th
e ba
sis o
f inf
orm
atio
n th
at is
obj
ectiv
e re
liabl
e sp
ecifi
c an
d pr
oper
ly u
pdat
ed a
nd h
avin
g re
gard
to th
e st
anda
rd o
f pro
tect
ion
of fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts g
uara
ntee
d by
EU
law
that
that
risk
is re
al fo
r tha
t app
lican
t on
acc
ount
of t
he fa
ct th
at s
houl
d he
be
tran
sfer
red
he
wou
ld fi
nd h
imse
lf ir
resp
ectiv
e of
his
wish
es a
nd
pers
onal
cho
ices
in
a sit
uatio
n of
ext
rem
e m
ater
ial p
over
tyrsquo
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 53
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
[GC]
Bash
ar Ib
rahi
m a
nd
Oth
ers v
Bun
desr
epub
lik
Deut
schl
and
and
Bund
esre
publ
ik
Deut
schl
and
v Ta
us
Mag
amad
ov
C-29
717
C-3
181
7
C-31
917
and
C-4
381
7
EUC
201
921
9
190
320
19
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
33(
2)(a
) and
of
the
first
par
agra
ph o
f Art
icle
52
of D
irect
ive
2013
32
EU o
f the
Eur
opea
n Pa
rliam
ent a
nd o
f the
Cou
ncil
of26 June
201
3on
com
mon
procedu
resforgrantingan
dwith
draw
inginternationa
lprotectionan
dof
Artic
les 4
and
18
of th
e Ch
arte
r of F
unda
men
tal R
ight
s of t
he E
urop
ean
Uni
on
Area
of f
reed
om s
ecur
ity a
nd ju
stice
mdash C
omm
on p
roce
dure
s for
gra
ntin
g an
d w
ithdr
awin
g in
tern
atio
nal
prot
ectio
n mdash
Dire
ctive
201
332
EU
mdash A
rticl
e 33
(2)(a
) mdash R
ejec
tion
by th
e au
thor
ities
of a
Mem
ber S
tate
of a
n ap
plica
tion
for a
sylu
m a
s bei
ng in
adm
issib
le b
ecau
se o
f the
prio
r gra
ntin
g of
subs
idia
ry p
rote
ctio
n in
ano
ther
M
embe
r Sta
te mdash
Art
icle
52 mdash
Sco
pe ra
tione
tem
poris
of t
hat d
irect
ive mdash
Art
icles
4 a
nd 1
8 of
the
Char
ter o
f Fu
ndam
enta
l Rig
hts o
f the
Eur
opea
n Un
ion
mdash S
yste
mic
flaw
s in
the
asyl
um p
roce
dure
in th
at o
ther
Mem
ber
Stat
e mdash
Sys
tem
atic
reje
ctio
n of
app
licat
ions
for a
sylu
m mdash
Sub
stan
tial r
isk o
f suf
ferin
g in
hum
an o
r deg
radi
ng
treat
men
t mdash Li
ving
cond
ition
s of t
hose
gra
nted
subs
idia
ry p
rote
ctio
n in
that
oth
er S
tate
Para
s 8
8-93
lsquo88
Acc
ordi
ngly
whe
re a
cou
rt o
r trib
unal
hea
ring
an a
ctio
n br
ough
t aga
inst
a d
ecisi
on re
ject
ing
a ne
w
appl
icat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n as
bei
ng in
adm
issib
le h
as a
vaila
ble
to it
evi
denc
e pr
oduc
ed b
y th
e ap
plic
ant i
n or
der t
o es
tabl
ish th
e ex
isten
ce o
f suc
h a
risk
in th
e M
embe
r Sta
te th
at h
as p
revi
ously
gr
ante
d su
bsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
that
cou
rt o
r trib
unal
is o
blig
ed to
ass
ess
on
the
basis
of i
nfor
mat
ion
that
is o
bjec
tive
relia
ble
spec
ific
and
prop
erly
upd
ated
and
hav
ing
rega
rd to
the
stan
dard
of p
rote
ctio
n of
fund
amen
tal r
ight
s gua
rant
eed
by E
U la
w w
heth
er th
ere
are
defic
ienc
ies
whi
ch m
ay b
e sy
stem
ic o
r ge
nera
lised
or w
hich
may
affe
ct c
erta
in g
roup
s of p
eopl
e (s
ee b
y an
alog
y ju
dgm
ent o
f tod
ayrsquos
date
Ja
wo
C-1
631
7 p
arag
raph
90
and
the
case
-law
cite
d)
lsquo89
In th
at re
gard
it m
ust b
e st
ated
that
if t
he d
efic
ienc
ies m
entio
ned
in th
e pr
eced
ing
para
grap
h of
the
pres
ent j
udgm
ent a
re to
fall
with
in th
e sc
ope
of A
rtic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
er w
hich
cor
resp
onds
to A
rtic
le 3
of
the
ECHR
and
the
mea
ning
and
scop
e of
whi
ch is
ther
efor
e u
nder
Art
icle
52(
3) o
f the
Cha
rter
the
sam
e as
thos
e la
id d
own
by th
e EC
HR t
hose
def
icie
ncie
s mus
t att
ain
a pa
rtic
ular
ly h
igh
leve
l of s
ever
ity w
hich
de
pend
s on
all t
he c
ircum
stan
ces o
f the
cas
e (ju
dgm
ent o
f tod
ayrsquos
date
Jaw
o C
-163
17
par
agra
ph 9
1 an
d th
e ca
se-la
w c
ited)
lsquo90
Tha
t par
ticul
arly
hig
h le
vel o
f sev
erity
is a
ttai
ned
whe
re th
e in
diffe
renc
e of
the
auth
oriti
es o
f a
Mem
ber S
tate
wou
ld re
sult
in a
per
son
who
lly d
epen
dent
on
Stat
e su
ppor
t fin
ding
him
self
irre
spec
tive
of h
is w
ishes
and
his
pers
onal
cho
ices
in
a sit
uatio
n of
ext
rem
e m
ater
ial p
over
ty th
at d
oes n
ot a
llow
hi
m to
mee
t his
mos
t bas
ic n
eeds
suc
h as
int
er a
lia f
ood
per
sona
l hyg
iene
and
a p
lace
to li
ve a
nd th
at
unde
rmin
es h
is ph
ysic
al o
r men
tal h
ealth
or p
uts h
im in
a st
ate
of d
egra
datio
n in
com
patib
le w
ith h
uman
di
gnity
(jud
gmen
t of t
oday
rsquos da
te J
awo
C-1
631
7 p
arag
raph
92
and
the
case
-law
cite
d)
Alhe
toC-5851625 July
2018
Ahm
edC-36175 April
2017
Abub
acar
r Jaw
o v
Bund
esre
publ
ik
Deut
schl
and
[GC]
C-1631719 March
2019
54 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo91
Tha
t thr
esho
ld c
anno
t the
refo
re c
over
situ
atio
ns c
hara
cter
ised
even
by
a hi
gh d
egre
e of
inse
curit
y or
a si
gnifi
cant
deg
rada
tion
of th
e liv
ing
cond
ition
s of t
he p
erso
n co
ncer
ned
whe
re th
ey d
o no
t ent
ail
extr
eme
mat
eria
l pov
erty
pla
cing
that
per
son
in a
situ
atio
n of
such
gra
vity
that
it m
ay b
e eq
uate
d w
ith
inhu
man
or d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t (ju
dgm
ent o
f tod
ayrsquos
date
Jaw
o C
-163
17
par
agra
ph 9
3)
lsquo92
Giv
en th
e co
ncer
ns o
f the
refe
rrin
g co
urt o
n th
is po
int
it m
ust b
e m
ade
clea
r tha
t ha
ving
rega
rd to
th
e im
port
ance
of t
he p
rinci
ple
of m
utua
l tru
st fo
r the
com
mon
Eur
opea
n as
ylum
syst
em i
nfrin
gem
ents
of
the
prov
ision
s of C
hapt
er V
II of
the
Qua
lific
atio
n Di
rect
ive
whi
ch d
o no
t res
ult i
n a
brea
ch o
f Art
icle
4
of th
e Ch
arte
r do
not p
reve
nt th
e M
embe
r Sta
tes f
rom
exe
rcisi
ng th
e op
tion
gran
ted
by A
rtic
le 3
3(2)
(a) o
f th
e Pr
oced
ures
Dire
ctiv
e
lsquo93
As r
egar
ds th
e fa
ct a
lso m
entio
ned
by th
e re
ferr
ing
cour
t th
at th
ose
gran
ted
subs
idia
ry p
rote
ctio
n do
not
rece
ive
in th
e M
embe
r Sta
te w
hich
gra
nted
such
pro
tect
ion
to th
e ap
plic
ant
any
subs
isten
ce
allo
wan
ce o
r tha
t suc
h al
low
ance
as t
hey
rece
ive
is m
arke
dly
infe
rior t
o th
at in
oth
er M
embe
r Sta
tes
th
ough
they
are
not
trea
ted
diffe
rent
ly fr
om n
atio
nals
of th
at M
embe
r Sta
te t
hat c
an le
ad to
the
findi
ng
that
that
app
lican
t is e
xpos
ed in
that
Mem
ber S
tate
to a
real
risk
of s
uffe
ring
trea
tmen
t tha
t is i
n br
each
of
Art
icle
4 o
f the
Cha
rter
onl
y if
the
cons
eque
nce
is th
at th
e ap
plic
ant i
s b
ecau
se o
f his
or h
er p
artic
ular
vu
lner
abili
ty i
rres
pect
ive
of h
is or
her
wish
es a
nd p
erso
nal c
hoic
es i
n a
situa
tion
of e
xtre
me
mat
eria
l po
vert
y th
at m
eets
the
crite
ria d
escr
ibed
in p
arag
raph
s 89
to 9
1 of
the
pres
ent j
udgm
entrsquo
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 55
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
[GC]
SM v
Ent
ry C
lear
ance
O
ffic
er U
K Vi
sa S
ectio
n
C-12
918
EUC
201
924
8
260
320
19
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
2(2
)(c) a
nd
Artic
les2
7an
d35
ofD
irective20
0438EC
ofthe
Europ
eanParliam
enta
ndofthe
Cou
ncilof29 Ap
ril
2004
on
the
right
of c
itize
ns o
f the
Uni
on a
nd th
eir f
amily
mem
bers
to m
ove
and
resid
e fr
eely
with
in th
e te
rrito
ry o
f the
Mem
ber S
tate
s
Dire
ctiv
e 20
043
8EC
mdash F
amily
mem
bers
of a
citi
zen
of th
e U
nion
mdash A
rtic
le 2
(2)(c
) mdash lsquoD
irect
de
scen
dant
rsquo mdash C
hild
in p
erm
anen
t leg
al g
uard
ians
hip
unde
r the
Alg
eria
n ka
fala
(pro
visio
n of
car
e)
syst
em mdash
Art
icle
3(2
)(a) mdash
Oth
er fa
mily
mem
bers
mdash A
rtic
le 7
and
Art
icle
24(
2) o
f the
Cha
rter
of
Fund
amen
tal R
ight
s of t
he E
urop
ean
Uni
on mdash
Fam
ily li
fe mdash
Bes
t int
eres
ts o
f the
chi
ld
Para
67
lsquo67
Art
icle
7 o
f the
Cha
rter
mus
t m
oreo
ver
be re
ad in
con
junc
tion
with
the
oblig
atio
n to
take
into
co
nsid
erat
ion
the
best
inte
rest
s of t
he c
hild
whi
ch a
re re
cogn
ised
in A
rtic
le 2
4(2)
ther
eofrsquo
Ziol
kow
ski a
nd S
zeja
C-
424
10 a
nd C
-425
10
21 Decem
ber2
011
Lass
al C
-162
09
7 Octob
er2010
O a
nd B
C-4
561
2
12 M
arch2014
Com
an a
nd O
ther
s C-673165 Ju
ne2018
Reye
s C-
423
12
16 Janu
ary2014
Ogi
eria
khi
C-24
413
10 Ju
ly2014
Rahm
an a
nd O
ther
s C-83115 Sep
tembe
r20
12
Bang
erC-891712 July
2018
McB
C-
400
10 P
PU
5 Octob
er2010
ECtH
R C
hbih
i Lou
doud
i an
d O
ther
s v B
elgi
um
no 5226510
16 Decem
ber2
014
Detiček C
-403
09
PPU
23 Decem
ber2
009
56 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
[GC
Staa
tsse
cret
aris
van
Ve
iligh
eid
en Ju
stiti
e v
H an
d R
Join
ed c
ases
C-5
821
7 an
d C-
5837
17
EUC
201
928
0
020
420
19
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Reg
ulat
ion
(EU
) No
60420
13ofthe
Europ
eanParliam
enta
ndofthe
Cou
ncilof26 June
201
3establish
ingthecrite
riaand
m
echa
nism
s for
det
erm
inin
g th
e M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
for e
xam
inin
g an
app
licat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal
prot
ectio
n lo
dged
in o
ne o
f the
Mem
ber S
tate
s by
a th
ird-c
ount
ry n
atio
nal o
r a st
atel
ess p
erso
n
Regu
latio
n (E
U) N
o 60
420
13 mdash
Art
icle
18(
1)(b
) to
(d) mdash
Art
icle
23(
1) mdash
Art
icle
24(
1) mdash
Tak
e ba
ck
proc
edur
e mdash
Crit
eria
for d
eter
min
ing
resp
onsib
ility
mdash N
ew a
pplic
atio
n lo
dged
in a
noth
er M
embe
r St
ate
mdash A
rtic
le 2
0(5)
mdash O
ngoi
ng d
eter
min
atio
n pr
oces
s mdash W
ithdr
awal
of t
he a
pplic
atio
n mdash
Art
icle
27
mdash
Rem
edie
s
Para
83
lsquo83
With
this
in m
ind
it sh
ould
be
obse
rved
that
the
crite
ria fo
r det
erm
inin
g re
spon
sibili
ty se
t out
in
Art
icle
s 8 to
10
of th
e Re
gula
tion
read
in th
e lig
ht o
f rec
itals
13 a
nd 1
4 th
ereo
f ar
e in
tend
ed to
pr
omot
e th
e be
st in
tere
sts o
f the
chi
ld a
nd th
e fa
mily
life
of t
he p
erso
ns c
once
rned
whi
ch a
re m
oreo
ver
guar
ante
ed in
Art
icle
s 7 a
nd 2
4 of
the
Char
ter o
f Fun
dam
enta
l Rig
hts
In th
ose
circ
umst
ance
s a
Mem
ber
Stat
e ca
nnot
in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith th
e pr
inci
ple
of si
ncer
e co
oper
atio
n p
rope
rly m
ake
a ta
ke b
ack
requ
est
in a
situ
atio
n co
vere
d by
Art
icle
20(
5) o
f the
regu
latio
n w
hen
the
pers
on c
once
rned
has
pro
vide
d th
e co
mpe
tent
aut
horit
y w
ith in
form
atio
n cl
early
est
ablis
hing
that
that
Mem
ber S
tate
mus
t be
rega
rded
as
the
Mem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
le fo
r exa
min
ing
the
appl
icat
ion
purs
uant
to th
ose
crite
ria fo
r det
erm
inin
g re
spon
sibili
ty I
n su
ch a
situ
atio
n it
is o
n th
e co
ntra
ry f
or th
at M
embe
r Sta
te to
acc
ept i
ts o
wn
resp
onsib
ility
rsquo
Chav
ez-V
ilche
z and
O
ther
s C-
133
15
10 M
ay2017
Rend
oacuten M
ariacuten
C-1651413 Septem
ber
2016
Ghez
elba
sh C
-63
15
7 June
2016
Karim
C-155157 Ju
ne
2016
Men
gest
eab
C-6
701
6
26 Ju
ly2017
Shiri
C-2
011
6
25 Octob
er2017
ASC-4901626 July
2017
Hasa
n C
-360
16
25 Janu
ary2018
X an
d X
C-4
717
and
C-481713 No
vembe
r20
18
Ghez
elba
sh C
-63
15
7 June
2016
Mirz
a C
-695
15
PPU
17 M
arch2016
Khir
Amay
ry C
-60
16
13 Sep
tembe
r2017
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 57
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
Moh
amm
ed B
ilali
v Bu
ndes
amt f
uumlr
Frem
denw
esen
und
Asy
l
C-72
017
EUC
201
944
8
230
520
19
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
19
of D
irect
ive
2011
95EU
ofthe
Europ
eanParliam
enta
ndofthe
Cou
ncilof13 De
cembe
r201
1on
stan
dardsforth
equ
alifi
catio
n of
third
-cou
ntry
nat
iona
ls or
stat
eles
s per
sons
as b
enef
icia
ries o
f int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
for
a un
iform
stat
us fo
r ref
ugee
s or f
or p
erso
ns e
ligib
le fo
r sub
sidia
ry p
rote
ctio
n a
nd fo
r the
con
tent
of t
he
prot
ectio
n gr
ante
d
Area
of f
reed
om s
ecur
ity a
nd ju
stic
e mdash
Asy
lum
pol
icy
mdash S
ubsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
mdash D
irect
ive
2011
95
EU mdash
Art
icle
19
mdash R
evoc
atio
n of
subs
idia
ry p
rote
ctio
n st
atus
mdash E
rror
on
the
part
of t
he a
dmin
istra
tive
auth
oriti
es w
ith re
spec
t to
the
fact
s
Para
44
lsquo44
In th
at re
gard
it s
houl
d be
not
ed f
irst
that
the
Cour
t has
alre
ady
held
that
it w
ould
be
cont
rary
to
the
gene
ral s
chem
e an
d ob
ject
ives
of D
irect
ive
2011
95
to g
rant
refu
gee
stat
us a
nd su
bsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
stat
us to
third
-cou
ntry
nat
iona
ls in
situ
atio
ns w
hich
hav
e no
con
nect
ion
with
the
ratio
nale
of i
nter
natio
nal
protectio
n(see
tothateffe
ctjud
gmen
tof1
8 De
cembe
r201
4M
rsquoBod
j C-
542
13 E
UC
201
424
52
para
grap
h 44
) Th
e sit
uatio
n of
an
indi
vidu
al w
ho h
as o
btai
ned
subs
idia
ry p
rote
ctio
n st
atus
on
the
basis
of
inco
rrec
t inf
orm
atio
n w
ithou
t eve
r hav
ing
met
the
cond
ition
s for
obt
aini
ng th
at st
atus
has
no
conn
ectio
n w
ith th
e ra
tiona
le o
f int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
rsquo
Para
51
lsquo51
Con
sequ
ently
it f
ollo
ws f
rom
a c
ombi
ned
read
ing
of A
rtic
les 1
6 an
d 19
(1) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
119
5 in
the
light
of t
he g
ener
al sc
hem
e an
d pu
rpos
e of
that
dire
ctiv
e th
at w
here
the
host
Mem
ber S
tate
has
new
in
form
atio
n w
hich
est
ablis
hes t
hat
cont
rary
to it
s ini
tial a
sses
smen
t of t
he si
tuat
ion
of a
third
-cou
ntry
na
tiona
l or o
f a st
atel
ess p
erso
n to
who
m it
gra
nted
subs
idia
ry p
rote
ctio
n b
ased
on
inco
rrec
t inf
orm
atio
n
that
per
son
neve
r fac
ed a
risk
of s
erio
us h
arm
with
in th
e m
eani
ng o
f Art
icle
15
of th
at d
irect
ive
that
M
embe
r Sta
te m
ust c
oncl
ude
from
this
that
the
circ
umst
ance
s und
erly
ing
the
gran
ting
of su
bsid
iary
pr
otec
tion
stat
us h
ave
chan
ged
in su
ch a
way
that
rete
ntio
n of
that
stat
us is
no
long
er ju
stifi
edrsquo
Para
58
lsquo58
Alth
ough
ther
e is
noth
ing
in th
at c
onve
ntio
n th
at e
xpre
ssly
pro
vide
s for
loss
of r
efug
ee st
atus
if
it su
bseq
uent
ly e
mer
ges t
hat t
hat s
tatu
s sho
uld
neve
r hav
e be
en c
onfe
rred
the
UN
HCR
neve
rthe
less
co
nsid
ers t
hat
in su
ch a
situ
atio
n th
e de
cisio
n gr
antin
g re
fuge
e st
atus
mus
t in
prin
cipl
e b
e an
nulle
d (H
andb
ook
on P
roce
dure
s and
Crit
eria
for D
eter
min
ing
Refu
gee
Stat
us u
nder
the
1951
Con
vent
ion
and
the
1967
Pro
toco
l rel
atin
g to
the
Stat
us o
f Ref
ugee
s 1
992
par
agra
ph 1
17)rsquo
IdiC-1011828 March
2019
Ahm
ed C
-369
17
13 Sep
tembe
r2018
M a
nd O
ther
s (R
evoc
atio
n of
refu
gee
stat
us)
C-39
116
C-
771
7 an
d C-
-81
7
14 M
ay2019
Ahm
edbe
kova
C-652164 Octob
er
2018
Moh
amed
MrsquoB
odj
v Eacutet
at b
elge
C-5
421
3
18 Decem
ber2
014
HTC-3731324 June
20
15
Sala
hadi
n Ab
dulla
and
O
ther
s jo
ined
case
s C-
175
08 C
-176
08
C-
178
08 a
nd C
-179
08
2 March2010
Alo
and
Oss
o C
-443
14
andC-444141 M
arch
2016
Hala
fC-5281130 May
2013
58 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
62
lsquo62
It sh
ould
also
be
adde
d th
at w
hen
mak
ing
the
asse
ssm
ents
whi
ch it
is fo
r the
Mem
ber S
tate
co
ncer
ned
to c
arry
out
und
er th
e pr
oced
ures
refe
rred
to in
par
agra
phs 6
0 an
d 61
of t
he p
rese
nt
judg
men
t th
at M
embe
r Sta
te is
obl
iged
to o
bser
ve i
n pa
rtic
ular
the
fund
amen
tal r
ight
of t
he p
erso
n co
ncer
ned
to re
spec
t for
priv
ate
and
fam
ily li
fe w
hich
is g
uara
ntee
d w
ithin
thei
r res
pect
ive
scop
e of
ap
plic
atio
n b
y Ar
ticle
7 o
f the
Cha
rter
of F
unda
men
tal R
ight
s of t
he E
urop
ean
Uni
on a
nd b
y Ar
ticle
8 o
f th
e EC
HRrsquo
B an
d D
C-5
709
and
C-101099 Novem
ber
2010
CJEU
[GC]
Zuba
r Haq
bin
v Fe
dera
al
Agen
tsch
ap v
oor d
e op
vang
van
asi
elzo
eker
s
C-23
318
EUC
201
995
6
121
120
19
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
20
of D
irect
ive
2013
33EU
ofthe
Europ
eanParliam
enta
ndofthe
Cou
ncilof26 June
201
3laying
dow
nstan
dardsforth
ere
cept
ion
of a
pplic
ants
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n
Appl
ican
ts fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
mdash D
irect
ive
2013
33
EU mdash
Art
icle
20(
4) a
nd (5
) mdash S
erio
us b
reac
h of
the
rule
s of t
he a
ccom
mod
atio
n ce
ntre
s as w
ell a
s ser
ious
ly v
iole
nt b
ehav
iour
mdash S
cope
of t
he M
embe
r St
ates
rsquo rig
ht to
det
erm
ine
the
sanc
tions
app
licab
le mdash
Una
ccom
pani
ed m
inor
mdash R
educ
tion
or w
ithdr
awal
of
mat
eria
l rec
eptio
n co
nditi
ons
Para
34
lsquo34
In th
e sp
ecifi
c sit
uatio
n of
lsquovul
nera
ble
pers
onsrsquo
with
in th
e m
eani
ng o
f Art
icle
21
of th
e di
rect
ive
w
hich
incl
ude
unac
com
pani
ed m
inor
s suc
h as
Mr H
aqbi
n at
the
time
whe
n he
was
the
subj
ect o
f the
sa
nctio
n at
issu
e in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s th
e se
cond
subp
arag
raph
of A
rtic
le 1
7(2)
of t
he d
irect
ive
stat
es
that
Mem
ber S
tate
s mus
t ens
ure
that
such
a st
anda
rd o
f liv
ing
is lsquom
etrsquorsquo
Para
45
lsquo45
Firs
t th
e ho
st M
embe
r Sta
te m
ust r
espe
ct fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts
as i
s app
aren
t fro
m re
cita
l 35
of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
3 C
onse
quen
tly A
rtic
le 2
0 of
that
dire
ctiv
e m
ust b
e re
ad a
nd in
terp
rete
d in
the
light
in
part
icul
ar o
f res
pect
for h
uman
dig
nity
and
the
right
s of t
he c
hild
ens
hrin
ed r
espe
ctiv
ely
in A
rtic
les 1
an
d 24
of t
he C
hart
errsquo
CHEZ
Raz
pred
elen
ie
Bulg
aria
C-8
314
16 Ju
ly2015
Abub
acar
r Jaw
o v
Bund
esre
publ
ik
Deut
schl
and
[GC]
C-1631719 March
2019
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 59
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
46
lsquo46
With
rega
rd sp
ecifi
cally
to th
e re
quire
men
t to
ensu
re a
dig
nifie
d st
anda
rd o
f liv
ing
it is
app
aren
t fr
om re
cita
l 35
of D
irect
ive
2013
33
that
the
dire
ctiv
e se
eks t
o en
sure
full
resp
ect f
or h
uman
dig
nity
and
to
pro
mot
e th
e ap
plic
atio
n in
ter a
lia o
f Art
icle
1 o
f the
Cha
rter
of F
unda
men
tal R
ight
s and
has
to b
e im
plem
ente
d ac
cord
ingl
y In
that
rega
rd r
espe
ct fo
r hum
an d
igni
ty w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of t
hat a
rtic
le
requ
ires t
he p
erso
n co
ncer
ned
not f
indi
ng h
imse
lf or
her
self
in a
situ
atio
n of
ext
rem
e m
ater
ial p
over
ty
that
doe
s not
allo
w th
at p
erso
n to
mee
t his
or h
er m
ost b
asic
nee
ds su
ch a
s a p
lace
to li
ve f
ood
clo
thin
g an
d pe
rson
al h
ygie
ne a
nd th
at u
nder
min
es h
is or
her
phy
sical
or m
enta
l hea
lth o
r put
s tha
t per
son
in
a st
ate
of d
egra
datio
n in
com
patib
le w
ith h
uman
dig
nity
rsquo
Para
53
lsquo53
Las
tly i
t is i
mpo
rtan
t to
note
that
whe
re th
e ap
plic
ant
as in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s is
an
unac
com
pani
ed m
inor
tha
t is t
o sa
y a
lsquovul
nera
ble
pers
onrsquo w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 2
1 of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
3 th
e au
thor
ities
of t
he M
embe
r Sta
tes
whe
n im
posin
g sa
nctio
ns p
ursu
ant t
o Ar
ticle
20(
4) o
f the
di
rect
ive
mus
t esp
ecia
lly ta
ke in
to a
ccou
nt a
ccor
ding
to th
e se
cond
sent
ence
of A
rtic
le 2
0(5)
ther
eof
of
the
part
icul
ar si
tuat
ion
of th
e m
inor
and
of t
he p
rinci
ple
of p
ropo
rtio
nalit
yrsquo
Para
54
lsquo54
The
pro
visio
n of
such
supp
ort i
s jus
tifie
d sin
ce th
e ad
optio
n of
such
a sa
nctio
n do
es n
ot m
ean
that
th
e re
cept
ion
right
has
lega
lly c
ome
to a
n en
d F
or a
s lon
g as
the
min
or is
aut
horis
ed to
rem
ain
on th
e te
rrito
ry o
f the
hos
t Mem
ber S
tate
for t
he p
urpo
ses o
f exa
min
atio
n of
his
appl
icat
ion
(25)
and
pro
vide
d th
at h
e do
es n
ot h
ave
suffi
cien
t ow
n m
eans
to su
ppor
t his
esse
ntia
l nee
ds (
26) t
hat S
tate
mus
t ens
ure
rece
ptio
n co
nditi
ons t
hat e
nabl
e hi
m to
hav
e ac
cess
to h
ealth
car
e an
d to
live
in d
igni
ty (
27) A
lthou
gh
the
EU le
gisla
ture
doe
s not
spec
ify th
e m
easu
res w
hich
the
host
Mem
ber S
tate
is sp
ecifi
cally
requ
ired
to a
dopt
in o
rder
to e
nsur
e a
dign
ified
stan
dard
of l
ivin
g th
ose
mea
sure
s mus
t cov
er th
e m
ost e
ssen
tial
right
s at t
he ti
me
whe
n th
e ap
plic
ant i
s with
out s
ourc
es o
f inc
ome
nam
ely
the
poss
ibili
ty to
be
hous
ed
fed
and
clot
hed
rsquo
60 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
56
lsquo56
In th
e lig
ht o
f all
of th
e fo
rego
ing
the
answ
er to
the
ques
tions
refe
rred
is th
at A
rtic
le 2
0(4)
and
(5) o
f Di
rect
ive
2013
33
read
in th
e lig
ht o
f Art
icle
1 o
f the
Cha
rter
of F
unda
men
tal R
ight
s m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
d as
mea
ning
that
a M
embe
r Sta
te c
anno
t am
ong
the
sanc
tions
that
may
be
impo
sed
on a
n ap
plic
ant f
or
serio
us b
reac
hes o
f the
rule
s of t
he a
ccom
mod
atio
n ce
ntre
s as w
ell a
s ser
ious
ly v
iole
nt b
ehav
iour
pro
vide
fo
r a sa
nctio
n co
nsist
ing
in th
e w
ithdr
awal
eve
n te
mpo
rary
of m
ater
ial r
ecep
tion
cond
ition
s w
ithin
th
e m
eani
ng o
f Art
icle
2(f)
and
(g) o
f the
dire
ctiv
e re
latin
g to
hou
sing
food
or c
loth
ing
in so
far a
s it
wou
ld h
ave
the
effe
ct o
f dep
rivin
g th
e ap
plic
ant o
f the
pos
sibili
ty o
f mee
ting
his o
r her
mos
t bas
ic n
eeds
Th
e im
posit
ion
of o
ther
sanc
tions
und
er A
rtic
le 2
0(4)
of t
he d
irect
ive
mus
t un
der a
ll ci
rcum
stan
ces
co
mpl
y w
ith th
e co
nditi
ons l
aid
dow
n in
Art
icle
20(
5) th
ereo
f in
clud
ing
thos
e co
ncer
ning
the
prin
cipl
e of
pr
opor
tiona
lity
and
resp
ect f
or h
uman
dig
nity
In
the
case
of a
n un
acco
mpa
nied
min
or t
hose
sanc
tions
m
ust
in th
e lig
ht i
nter
alia
of A
rtic
le 2
4 of
the
Char
ter o
f Fun
dam
enta
l Rig
hts
be
dete
rmin
ed b
y ta
king
pa
rtic
ular
acc
ount
of t
he b
est i
nter
ests
of t
he c
hild
rsquo
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 61
Advo
cate
Gen
eral
(AG
) Opi
nion
CJEU
(Opi
nion
of
Advo
cate
Ge
nera
l Sh
arps
ton)
A B
and
C v
St
aats
secr
etar
is v
an
Veili
ghei
d en
Just
itie
C-14
813
to C
-150
13
EUC
201
421
11
170
720
14
Opi
nion
afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ns a
bro
ad c
once
ptua
l que
stio
n as
to w
heth
er E
U
law
lim
its th
e ac
tions
of M
embe
r Sta
tes w
hen
asse
ssin
g re
ques
ts fo
r asy
lum
mad
e by
an
appl
ican
t who
fe
ars p
erse
cutio
n in
his
coun
try
of o
rigin
on
grou
nds o
f his
sexu
al o
rient
atio
n
Dire
ctiv
e 20
058
5EC
mdash A
sses
smen
t of a
pplic
atio
ns fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
mdash A
sses
smen
t of f
acts
an
d ci
rcum
stan
ces mdash
Cre
dibi
lity
of a
n ap
plic
antrsquos
ave
rred
sexu
al o
rient
atio
n)
Para
s 6
0 ndash
61
lsquo60
With
in th
e Eu
rope
an U
nion
hom
osex
ualit
y is
no lo
nger
con
sider
ed to
be
a m
edic
al o
r psy
chol
ogic
al
cond
ition
(65
) The
re is
no
reco
gnise
d m
edic
al e
xam
inat
ion
that
can
be
appl
ied
in o
rder
to e
stab
lish
a pe
rson
rsquos se
xual
orie
ntat
ion
As r
egar
ds th
e rig
ht to
priv
ate
life
inte
rfere
nce
with
an
indi
vidu
alrsquos
right
to
his s
exua
l orie
ntat
ion
can
only
be
mad
e w
here
int
er a
lia i
t is p
rovi
ded
for b
y la
w a
nd it
com
plie
s with
the
prin
cipl
e of
pro
port
iona
lity
lsquo61
Sin
ce h
omos
exua
lity
is no
t a m
edic
al c
ondi
tion
any
pur
port
ed m
edic
al te
st a
pplie
d to
det
erm
ine
an a
pplic
antrsquos
sexu
al o
rient
atio
n co
uld
not
in m
y vi
ew b
e co
nsid
ered
to b
e co
nsist
ent w
ith A
rtic
le 3
of
the
Char
ter
It w
ould
also
fail
the
prop
ortio
nalit
y re
quire
men
t (Ar
ticle
52(
1)) i
n re
latio
n to
a v
iola
tion
of th
e rig
ht to
priv
acy
and
fam
ily li
fe b
ecau
se b
y de
finiti
on s
uch
a te
st c
anno
t ach
ieve
the
obje
ctiv
e of
es
tabl
ishin
g an
indi
vidu
alrsquos
sexu
al o
rient
atio
n It
follo
ws t
hat m
edic
al te
sts c
anno
t be
used
for t
he p
urpo
se
of e
stab
lishi
ng a
n ap
plic
antrsquos
cre
dibi
lity
as t
hey
infr
inge
Art
icle
s 3 a
nd 7
of t
he C
hart
errsquo
Min
ister
voo
r Im
mig
ratie
en
Asie
l v
X Y
and
Z v
Min
ister
vo
or Im
mig
ratie
en
Asie
l jo
ined
cas
es
C-19
912
to C
-201
12
7 Novem
ber2
013
Bund
esre
publ
ik
Deut
schl
and
v Y
and
Z
C-71
11
and
C-99
11
5 Septem
ber2
012
Sala
hadi
n Ab
dulla
an
d O
ther
s C
-175
08
C-
176
08 C
-178
08
andC-17
908
2 M
arch
2010
Sam
ba D
iouf
C-6
910
28
July201
1
M C
-277
11
22
Novem
ber2
012
ECtH
R V
an K
uumlck
v Ge
rman
y
no 359
689712 June
20
03
62 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Euro
pean
Cou
rt o
f Hum
an R
ight
s (EC
tHR)
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
Aire
y v
Irela
nd
no 628
973
091
019
79
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 8
ECH
R ndash
right
to re
spec
t for
priv
ate
and
fam
ily li
fe ndash
Sta
te fa
iled
to a
ct
Artic
le 6
(1) ndash
righ
t to
fair
hear
ing
-the
app
lican
t was
with
out a
n ef
fect
ive
right
of a
cces
s to
the
High
Cou
rt
for p
urpo
ses o
f sep
arat
ion
proc
eedi
ngs
Para
24
lsquo24
The
Gov
ernm
ent c
onte
nd th
at th
e ap
plic
atio
n do
es e
njoy
acc
ess t
o th
e Hi
gh C
ourt
sinc
e sh
e is
free
to
go b
efor
e th
at c
ourt
with
out t
he a
ssist
ance
of a
law
yer
lsquoThe
Cou
rt d
oes n
ot re
gard
this
poss
ibili
ty o
f its
elf
as c
oncl
usiv
e of
the
mat
ter
The
Conv
entio
n is
inte
nded
to g
uara
ntee
not
righ
ts th
at a
re th
eore
tical
or i
lluso
ry b
ut ri
ghts
that
are
pra
ctic
al a
nd
effe
ctiv
e T
his i
s par
ticul
arly
so o
f the
righ
t of a
cces
s to
the
cour
ts in
vie
w o
f the
pro
min
ent p
lace
hel
d in
a d
emoc
ratic
soci
ety
by th
e rig
ht to
a fa
ir tr
ial
It m
ust t
here
fore
be
asce
rtai
ned
whe
ther
Mrs
Aire
yrsquos
appe
aran
ce b
efor
e th
e Hi
gh C
ourt
with
out t
he a
ssist
ance
of a
law
yer w
ould
be
effe
ctiv
e in
the
sens
e of
w
heth
er sh
e w
ould
be
able
to p
rese
nt h
er c
ase
prop
erly
and
satis
fact
orily
lsquoCon
trad
icto
ry v
iew
s on
this
ques
tion
wer
e ex
pres
sed
by th
e Go
vern
men
t and
the
Com
miss
ion
durin
g th
e or
al h
earin
gs I
t see
ms c
erta
in to
the
Cour
t tha
t the
app
lican
t wou
ld b
e at
a d
isadv
anta
ge if
her
hus
band
w
ere
repr
esen
ted
by a
law
yer a
nd sh
e w
ere
not
Qui
te a
part
from
this
even
tual
ity i
t is n
ot re
alist
ic i
n th
e Co
urtrsquos
opi
nion
to
supp
ose
that
in
litig
atio
n of
this
natu
re t
he a
pplic
ant c
ould
effe
ctiv
ely
cond
uct h
er
own
case
des
pite
the
assis
tanc
e w
hich
as w
as st
ress
ed b
y th
e Go
vern
men
t th
e ju
dge
affo
rds t
o pa
rtie
s ac
ting
in p
erso
n
lsquoIn Ir
elan
d a
dec
ree
of ju
dici
al se
para
tion
is no
t obt
aina
ble
in a
Dist
rict C
ourt
whe
re th
e pr
oced
ure
is re
lativ
ely
simpl
e b
ut o
nly
in th
e Hi
gh C
ourt
A sp
ecia
list i
n Iri
sh fa
mily
law
Mr
Alan
J S
hatt
er r
egar
ds
the
High
Cou
rt a
s the
leas
t acc
essib
le c
ourt
not
onl
y be
caus
e ldquof
ees p
ayab
le fo
r rep
rese
ntat
ion
befo
re it
ar
e ve
ry h
ighrdquo
but
also
by
reas
on o
f the
fact
that
ldquoth
e pr
oced
ure
for i
nstit
utin
g pr
ocee
ding
s
is co
mpl
ex
part
icul
arly
in th
e ca
se o
f tho
se p
roce
edin
gs w
hich
mus
t be
com
men
ced
by a
pet
ition
rdquo su
ch a
s tho
se fo
r se
para
tion
(Fam
ily L
aw in
the
Repu
blic
of I
rela
nd D
ublin
197
7 p
21)
Klas
s and
Oth
ers
no
502
971
6 Septem
ber1
978
De W
ilde
Oom
s and
Ve
rsyp
nos
283
266
28
356
6 2
899
66
18 Ju
ne197
1
Koumlni
gno 62
3273
28 Ju
ne197
8
Gold
ern
o 44
5170
21 Feb
ruary19
75
Belg
ian
lingu
istic
cas
e
nos 1
474
62 1
677
62
1691
62
176
963
19
946
3 2
126
64
23 Ju
ly196
8
Lued
icke
Bel
kace
m
and
Koccedil
nos
621
073
68
777
5 7
132
75
28 Novem
ber1
978
Mar
ckxno 68
3374
13 Ju
ne197
9
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 63
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquoFur
ther
mor
e li
tigat
ion
of th
is ki
nd i
n ad
ditio
n to
invo
lvin
g co
mpl
icat
ed p
oint
s of l
aw n
eces
sitat
es p
roof
of
adu
ltery
unn
atur
al p
ract
ices
or
as in
the
pres
ent c
ase
cru
elty
to
esta
blish
the
fact
s e
xper
t evi
denc
e m
ay h
ave
to b
e te
nder
ed a
nd w
itnes
ses m
ay h
ave
to b
e fo
und
cal
led
and
exam
ined
Wha
t is m
ore
m
arita
l disp
utes
ofte
n en
tail
an e
mot
iona
l inv
olve
men
t tha
t is s
carc
ely
com
patib
le w
ith th
e de
gree
of
obje
ctiv
ity re
quire
d by
adv
ocac
y in
cou
rt
lsquoFor
thes
e re
ason
s th
e Co
urt c
onsid
ers i
t mos
t im
prob
able
that
a p
erso
n in
Mrs
Aire
yrsquos p
ositi
on
(see
par
agra
ph 8
abo
ve) c
an e
ffect
ivel
y pr
esen
t his
or h
er o
wn
case
Thi
s vie
w is
cor
robo
rate
d by
the
Gove
rnm
entrsquos
repl
ies t
o th
e qu
estio
ns p
ut b
y th
e Co
urt
repl
ies w
hich
reve
al th
at in
eac
h of
the
255
judi
cial
sepa
ratio
n pr
ocee
ding
s ini
tiate
d in
Irel
and
in th
e pe
riod
from
Janu
ary
1972
to D
ecem
ber 1
978
w
ithou
t exc
eptio
n th
e pe
titio
ner w
as re
pres
ente
d by
a la
wye
r (se
e pa
ragr
aph
11 a
bove
)
lsquoThe
Cou
rt c
oncl
udes
from
the
fore
goin
g th
at th
e po
ssib
ility
to a
ppea
r in
pers
on b
efor
e th
e Hi
gh C
ourt
do
es n
ot p
rovi
de th
e ap
plic
ant w
ith a
n ef
fect
ive
right
of a
cces
s and
hen
ce t
hat i
t also
doe
s not
con
stitu
te
a do
mes
tic re
med
y w
hose
use
is d
eman
ded
by A
rtic
le 2
6 (a
rt 2
6)rsquo
Delc
ourt
no2
689
65
17 Ja
nuary19
70
De W
ilde
Oom
s and
Ve
rsyp
nos
283
266
28
356
6 2
899
66
10 M
arch197
2
Nat
iona
l Uni
on
of B
elgi
an P
olic
e
no 446
470
27
Octob
er197
5
ECtH
R
D v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no 302
4096
020
519
97
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
rem
oval
to S
t Kitt
s ndash in
hum
an a
nd d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t ndash m
edic
al tr
eatm
ent
Para
s 5
1-54
lsquo51
The
Cou
rt n
otes
that
the
appl
ican
t is i
n th
e ad
vanc
ed st
ages
of a
term
inal
and
incu
rabl
e ill
ness
At t
he
date
of t
he h
earin
g it
was
obs
erve
d th
at th
ere
had
been
a m
arke
d de
clin
e in
his
cond
ition
and
he
had
to
be tr
ansf
erre
d to
a h
ospi
tal
His c
ondi
tion
was
giv
ing
rise
to c
once
rn (s
ee p
arag
raph
21
abov
e) T
he li
mite
d qu
ality
of l
ife h
e no
w e
njoy
s res
ults
from
the
avai
labi
lity
of so
phist
icat
ed tr
eatm
ent a
nd m
edic
atio
n in
th
e U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m a
nd th
e ca
re a
nd k
indn
ess a
dmin
ister
ed b
y a
char
itabl
e or
gani
satio
n H
e ha
s bee
n co
unse
lled
on h
ow to
app
roac
h de
ath
and
has f
orm
ed b
onds
with
his
care
rs (s
ee p
arag
raph
19
abov
e)
Soer
ing
v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
mn
o 14
03888
7 July198
9
Vilv
araj
ah a
nd O
ther
s v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no
s 131
638
7
1316
487
131
658
7
1344
787
134
488
7
30 Octob
er199
1
64 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo52
The
abr
upt w
ithdr
awal
of t
hese
faci
litie
s will
ent
ail t
he m
ost d
ram
atic
con
sequ
ence
s for
him
It i
s not
di
sput
ed th
at h
is re
mov
al w
ill h
aste
n hi
s dea
th T
here
is a
serio
us d
ange
r tha
t the
con
ditio
ns o
f adv
ersit
y w
hich
aw
ait h
im in
St K
itts w
ill fu
rthe
r red
uce
his a
lread
y lim
ited
life
expe
ctan
cy a
nd su
bjec
t him
to
acut
e m
enta
l and
phy
sical
suffe
ring
Any
med
ical
trea
tmen
t whi
ch h
e m
ight
hop
e to
rece
ive
ther
e co
uld
not c
onte
nd w
ith th
e in
fect
ions
whi
ch h
e m
ay p
ossib
ly c
ontr
act o
n ac
coun
t of h
is la
ck o
f she
lter a
nd o
f a
prop
er d
iet a
s wel
l as e
xpos
ure
to th
e he
alth
and
sani
tatio
n pr
oble
ms w
hich
bes
et th
e po
pula
tion
of
St K
itts (
see
para
grap
h 32
abo
ve)
Whi
le h
e m
ay h
ave
a co
usin
in S
t Kitt
s (se
e pa
ragr
aph
18 a
bove
) no
ev
iden
ce h
as b
een
addu
ced
to sh
ow w
heth
er th
is pe
rson
wou
ld b
e w
illin
g or
in a
pos
ition
to a
tten
d to
the
need
s of a
term
inal
ly il
l man
The
re is
no
evid
ence
of a
ny o
ther
form
of m
oral
or s
ocia
l sup
port
Nor
has
it
been
show
n w
heth
er th
e ap
plic
ant w
ould
be
guar
ante
ed a
bed
in e
ither
of t
he h
ospi
tals
on th
e isl
and
whi
ch a
ccor
ding
to th
e Go
vern
men
t ca
re fo
r AID
S pa
tient
s (se
e pa
ragr
aph
17 a
bove
)
lsquo53
In v
iew
of t
hese
exc
eptio
nal c
ircum
stan
ces a
nd b
earin
g in
min
d th
e cr
itica
l sta
ge n
ow re
ache
d in
th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
fata
l illn
ess
the
impl
emen
tatio
n of
the
deci
sion
to re
mov
e hi
m to
St K
itts w
ould
am
ount
to
inhu
man
trea
tmen
t by
the
resp
onde
nt S
tate
in v
iola
tion
of A
rtic
le 3
(art
3)
The
Cour
t also
not
es in
th
is re
spec
t tha
t the
resp
onde
nt S
tate
has
ass
umed
resp
onsib
ility
for t
reat
ing
the
appl
ican
trsquos c
ondi
tion
since
Aug
ust 1
994
He
has b
ecom
e re
liant
on
the
med
ical
and
pal
liativ
e ca
re w
hich
he
is at
pre
sent
re
ceiv
ing
and
is no
dou
bt p
sych
olog
ical
ly p
repa
red
for d
eath
in a
n en
viro
nmen
t whi
ch is
bot
h fa
mili
ar a
nd
com
pass
iona
te A
lthou
gh it
can
not b
e sa
id th
at th
e co
nditi
ons w
hich
wou
ld c
onfr
ont h
im in
the
rece
ivin
g co
untr
y ar
e th
emse
lves
a b
reac
h of
the
stan
dard
s of A
rtic
le 3
(art
3)
his r
emov
al w
ould
exp
ose
him
to
a re
al ri
sk o
f dyi
ng u
nder
mos
t dist
ress
ing
circ
umst
ance
s and
wou
ld th
us a
mou
nt to
inhu
man
trea
tmen
t W
ithou
t cal
ling
into
que
stio
n th
e go
od fa
ith o
f the
und
erta
king
giv
en to
the
Cour
t by
the
Gove
rnm
ent (
see
para
grap
h 44
abo
ve)
it is
to b
e no
ted
that
the
abov
e co
nsid
erat
ions
mus
t be
seen
as w
ider
in sc
ope
than
th
e qu
estio
n w
heth
er o
r not
the
appl
ican
t is f
it to
trav
el b
ack
to S
t Kitt
s
lsquo54
Aga
inst
this
back
grou
nd th
e Co
urt e
mph
asise
s tha
t alie
ns w
ho h
ave
serv
ed th
eir p
rison
sent
ence
s an
d ar
e su
bjec
t to
expu
lsion
can
not i
n pr
inci
ple
clai
m a
ny e
ntitl
emen
t to
rem
ain
in th
e te
rrito
ry o
f a
Cont
ract
ing
Stat
e in
ord
er to
con
tinue
to b
enef
it fr
om m
edic
al s
ocia
l or o
ther
form
s of a
ssist
ance
pr
ovid
ed b
y th
e ex
pelli
ng S
tate
dur
ing
thei
r sta
y in
pris
on H
owev
er i
n th
e ve
ry e
xcep
tiona
l circ
umst
ance
s of
this
case
and
giv
en th
e co
mpe
lling
hum
anita
rian
cons
ider
atio
ns a
t sta
ke i
t mus
t be
conc
lude
d th
at th
e im
plem
enta
tion
of th
e de
cisio
n to
rem
ove
the
appl
ican
t wou
ld b
e a
viol
atio
n of
Art
icle
3 (a
rt 3
)rsquo
Chah
al v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(GC
) no
224
1493
15 Novem
ber1
995
Ahm
ed v
Aus
tria
no
259
64
17 Decem
ber1
996
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 65
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
Mub
ilanz
ila M
ayek
a an
d Ka
niki
Mitu
nga
v Be
lgiu
m
no 131
7803
121
020
06
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
dete
ntio
n ndash
depo
rtat
ion
ndash in
hum
an tr
eatm
ent o
f a c
hild
ndash A
rtic
le 8
ECH
R ndash
resp
ect f
or
fam
ily li
fe ndash
the
dete
ntio
n of
a fi
ve-y
ear-o
ld c
hild
in a
n ad
ult f
acili
ty w
ith o
nly
tele
phon
e co
mm
unic
atio
n w
ith h
er m
othe
r
Para
50
lsquo50
The
Cou
rt n
otes
that
the
seco
nd a
pplic
ant
who
was
onl
y fiv
e ye
ars o
ld w
as h
eld
in th
e sa
me
cond
ition
sas a
dults
She
was
det
aine
d in
a c
entr
e th
at h
ad in
itial
ly b
een
desig
ned
for a
dults
eve
n th
ough
sh
e w
as u
nacc
ompa
nied
by
her p
aren
ts a
nd n
o on
e ha
d be
en a
ssig
ned
to lo
ok a
fter h
er N
o m
easu
res
wer
e ta
ken
to e
nsur
e th
at sh
e re
ceiv
ed p
rope
r cou
nsel
ling
and
educ
atio
nal a
ssist
ance
from
qua
lifie
d pe
rson
nel s
peci
ally
man
date
d fo
r tha
t pur
pose
Tha
t situ
atio
n la
sted
for t
wo
mon
ths
It is
furt
her n
oted
th
at th
e re
spon
dent
Sta
te h
ave
ackn
owle
dged
that
the
plac
e of
det
entio
n w
as n
ot a
dapt
ed to
her
nee
ds
and
that
ther
e w
ere
no a
dequ
ate
stru
ctur
es in
pla
ce a
t the
tim
ersquo
A v
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 10019978841096
23 Sep
tembe
r1998
Adam
v G
erm
any
(dec
) no
43359984 Octob
er
2001
Aert
s v B
elgi
um
no 6119978451051
30 Ju
ly1998
Amro
llahi
v D
enm
ark
no
568110011 July
2002
Amuu
r v Fr
ance
no
197769225 June
19
96
Beld
joud
i v Fr
ance
no
120838626 March
1992
Beye
ler v
Ital
y
no 33202965 Janu
ary
2000
Botta
v It
aly
no
1531996772973
24 Fe
bruary1998
Boul
tif v
Switz
erla
nd
no 54273002August
2001
Boza
no v
Fran
ce
no 999082
18 Decem
ber1
986
66 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Caki
ci v
Turk
ey [G
C]
no 23657948 Ju
ly
1999
Chah
al v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(GC
) no
2241493
15 Novem
ber1
995
Čonka
v Be
lgiu
m
no 51564995 Fe
bruary
2002
DG v
Irel
and
no
394749816 May
2002
De W
ilde
Oom
s and
Ve
rsyp
nos
283
266
28
356
6 2
899
66
18 Ju
ne1971
Erik
sson
v Sw
eden
no
113738522 June
19
89
Gnah
oreacute
v Fr
ance
no
4003198
19 Sep
tembe
r2000
Ham
iyet
Kap
lan
and
Oth
ers v
Turk
ey
no 3674997
13 Sep
tembe
r2005
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 67
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Hokk
anen
v F
inla
nd
no 1982392
23 Sep
tembe
r1994
Igna
ccol
o-Ze
nide
v
Rom
ania
no
3167996
25 Janu
ary2000
Joha
nsen
v N
orw
ay
no 1738390
7 Au
gust
199
6
KF v
Ger
man
y
no 1441996765962
27 Novem
ber1
997
Keeg
an v
Irel
and
no 1696990
26 M
ay1994
Mok
rani
v Fr
ance
no
5220699
15 Ju
ly2003
Mou
staq
uim
v B
elgi
um
no 1231386
18 Fe
bruary1991
Niem
ietz
v G
erm
any
no
1371088
16 Decem
ber1
992
Nuut
inen
v F
inla
nd
no 328429627 June
20
00
Olss
on v
Swed
en (n
o 1)
no
104658324 March
1988
68 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Osm
an v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no
8719978711083
28 Octob
er1998
Rani
nen
v Fi
nlan
d
no 1521996771972
16 Decem
ber1
997
Selm
ouni
v Fr
ance
GC
no
258039428 July
1999
Slive
nko
v La
tvia
[GC]
no
48321999 Octob
er
2003
Soer
ing
v Un
ited
King
domno 1403888
7 July1989
Von
Hann
over
v
Germ
any
no
593200024 June
20
04
Wee
ks v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no 978782
2 March1987
Win
terw
erp
v th
e Ne
ther
land
s no
63017324 Octob
er
1979
Z an
d O
ther
s v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m G
C
no 293299510 May
2001
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 69
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
Sala
h Sh
eekh
v th
e N
ethe
rland
s
no 194
804
110
120
07
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
effe
ctiv
e re
med
y ndash
Net
herla
nds a
utho
ritie
s ref
used
to su
spen
d ex
pulsi
on p
endi
ng
a de
cisio
n on
his
obje
ctio
n ag
ains
t the
man
ner o
f tha
t exp
ulsio
n
Para
s 1
40-1
49
lsquo140
Th
e Co
urt c
onsid
ers i
t mos
t unl
ikel
y th
at th
e ap
plic
ant
who
is a
mem
ber o
f the
Ash
raf m
inor
ity
ndash on
e of
the
grou
ps m
akin
g up
the
Bena
diri
(or R
eer H
amar
) min
ority
gro
up ndash
and
who
hai
ls fr
om th
e so
uth
of S
omal
ia w
ould
be
able
to o
btai
n pr
otec
tion
from
a c
lan
in th
e ldquor
elat
ivel
y sa
ferdquo
area
s A
ccor
ding
to
the
Gove
rnm
entrsquos
Nov
embe
r 200
4 co
untr
y re
port
ind
ivid
uals
who
do
not o
rigin
ate
from
Som
alila
nd
or P
untla
nd a
nd w
ho a
re u
nabl
e to
cla
im c
lan
prot
ectio
n th
ere
alm
ost i
nvar
iabl
y en
d up
in m
isera
ble
sett
lem
ents
for t
he in
tern
ally
disp
lace
d w
ith n
o re
al c
hanc
e of
pro
per i
nteg
ratio
n T
hey
are
said
to h
ave
a m
argi
nal
isola
ted
posit
ion
in so
ciet
y w
hich
rend
ers t
hem
vul
nera
ble
and
mor
e lik
ely
than
mos
t to
be
the
vict
ims o
f crim
e In
deed
the
thre
e m
ost v
ulne
rabl
e gr
oups
in S
omal
ia a
re sa
id to
be
IDPs
min
oriti
es
and
retu
rnee
s fro
m e
xile
If e
xpel
led
to th
e ldquor
elat
ivel
y sa
ferdquo
area
s th
e ap
plic
ant w
ould
fall
into
all
thre
e ca
tego
ries
In th
is co
ntex
t it s
houl
d fu
rthe
r be
note
d th
at a
gain
acc
ordi
ng to
the
Gove
rnm
ent
ther
e ar
e so
few
Ben
adiri
in th
e ldquor
elat
ivel
y sa
ferdquo
area
s tha
t no
gene
ral s
tate
men
ts c
an b
e m
ade
abou
t the
ir po
sitio
n th
ere
How
ever
the
Cou
rt c
onsid
ers t
hat i
t is n
ot n
eces
sary
to e
xam
ine
whe
ther
the
cond
ition
s in
whi
ch
the
appl
ican
t is l
ikel
y to
end
up
if ex
pelle
d to
Som
alila
nd o
r Pun
tland
are
such
as t
o ex
pose
him
to a
real
ris
k of
bei
ng su
bjec
ted
to tr
eatm
ent i
n vi
olat
ion
of A
rtic
le 3
sin
ce it
is o
f the
opi
nion
that
that
pro
visio
n st
ands
in a
ny e
vent
in th
e w
ay o
f suc
h an
exp
ulsio
n fo
r the
follo
win
g re
ason
s
Ahm
ed v
Aus
tria
no
259
6494
17 Decem
ber1
996
Chah
al v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(GC
) no
224
1493
15 Novem
ber1
995
Čonka
v Be
lgiu
m
no 515
6499
5 Februa
ry200
2
HLR
v Fr
ance
no
245
739429 Ap
ril
1997
Hila
l v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 452
76996 M
arch
2001
Mam
atku
lov
and
Aska
rov
v Tu
rkey
[GC]
no
s 468
279
9 an
d 46
951
99
Selm
ouni
v F
ranc
e [GC]2
8 July199
9
no 258
0394
4 Februa
ry200
5
70 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
141
In
its p
ositi
on p
aper
of J
anua
ry 2
004
and
its a
dviso
ry o
f Nov
embe
r 200
5 U
NHC
R st
ates
its
oppo
sitio
n to
the
forc
ed re
turn
of r
ejec
ted
asyl
um se
eker
s to
area
s of S
omal
ia fr
om w
hich
they
do
not
orig
inat
e e
mph
asisi
ng th
at th
ere
is no
inte
rnal
flig
ht a
ltern
ativ
e av
aila
ble
in S
omal
ia I
t is n
ever
thel
ess
to b
e no
ted
that
it d
oes n
ot a
ppea
r to
be U
NHC
Rrsquos p
ositi
on th
at th
e in
divi
dual
s con
cern
ed w
ould
hav
e a
wel
l-fou
nded
fear
of p
erse
cutio
n w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 1
of t
he 1
951
Conv
entio
n in
the
area
s it
cons
ider
s saf
e R
athe
r th
e or
gani
satio
nrsquos c
once
rns a
re fo
cuse
d on
the
poss
ible
des
tabi
lisin
g ef
fect
s of
an
influ
x of
invo
lunt
ary
retu
rnee
s on
the
alre
ady
over
stre
tche
d ab
sorp
tion
capa
city
of S
omal
iland
an
d Pu
ntla
nd a
s wel
l as t
he d
ire si
tuat
ion
in w
hich
retu
rnee
s fin
d th
emse
lves
Whi
le th
e Co
urt b
y no
m
eans
wish
es to
det
ract
from
the
acut
e pe
rtin
ence
of s
ocio
-eco
nom
ic a
nd h
uman
itaria
n co
nsid
erat
ions
to
the
issue
of f
orce
d re
turn
s of r
ejec
ted
asyl
um se
eker
s to
a pa
rtic
ular
par
t of t
heir
coun
try
or o
rigin
su
ch c
onsid
erat
ions
do
not n
eces
saril
y ha
ve a
bea
ring
and
cer
tain
ly n
ot a
dec
isive
one
on
the
ques
tion
whe
ther
the
pers
ons c
once
rned
wou
ld fa
ce a
real
risk
of i
ll-tr
eatm
ent w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 3
of
the
Conv
entio
n in
thos
e ar
eas
Mor
eove
r Ar
ticle
3 d
oes n
ot a
s suc
h p
recl
ude
Cont
ract
ing
Stat
es fr
om
plac
ing
relia
nce
on th
e ex
isten
ce o
f an
inte
rnal
flig
ht a
ltern
ativ
e in
thei
r ass
essm
ent o
f an
indi
vidu
alrsquos
clai
m th
at a
retu
rn to
his
or h
er c
ount
ry o
f orig
in w
ould
exp
ose
him
or h
er to
a re
al ri
sk o
f bei
ng
subj
ecte
d to
trea
tmen
t pro
scrib
ed b
y th
at p
rovi
sion
How
ever
the
Cou
rt h
as p
revi
ously
hel
d th
at th
e in
dire
ct re
mov
al o
f an
alie
n to
an
inte
rmed
iary
cou
ntry
doe
s not
affe
ct th
e re
spon
sibili
ty o
f the
exp
ellin
g Co
ntra
ctin
g St
ate
to e
nsur
e th
at h
e or
she
is no
t as
a re
sult
of it
s dec
ision
to e
xpel
exp
osed
to tr
eatm
ent
cont
rary
to A
rtic
le 3
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n It
sees
no
reas
on to
hol
d di
ffere
ntly
whe
re th
e ex
pulsi
on is
as i
n th
e pr
esen
t cas
e to
take
pla
ce n
ot to
an
inte
rmed
iary
cou
ntry
but
to a
par
ticul
ar re
gion
of t
he c
ount
ry
of o
rigin
The
Cou
rt c
onsid
ers t
hat a
s a p
reco
nditi
on fo
r rel
ying
on
an in
tern
al fl
ight
alte
rnat
ive
cert
ain
guar
ante
es h
ave
to b
e in
pla
ce t
he p
erso
n to
be
expe
lled
mus
t be
able
to tr
avel
to th
e ar
ea c
once
rned
ga
in a
dmitt
ance
and
sett
le th
ere
faili
ng w
hich
an
issue
und
er A
rtic
le 3
may
aris
e th
e m
ore
so if
in th
e ab
senc
e of
such
gua
rant
ees t
here
is a
pos
sibili
ty o
f the
exp
elle
e en
ding
up
in a
par
t of t
he c
ount
ry o
f or
igin
whe
re h
e or
she
may
be
subj
ecte
d to
ill-t
reat
men
t
TI v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(dec)no
438
4498
7 March200
0
Vilv
araj
ah a
nd O
ther
s v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no
s 131
638
7
1316
487
131
658
7
1344
787
134
488
7
30 Octob
er199
1
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 71
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
142
The
Cou
rt o
bser
ves t
hat t
he a
utho
ritie
s of S
omal
iland
hav
e iss
ued
a de
cree
ndash w
hich
adm
itted
ly
has n
ot b
een
enfo
rced
to d
ate
ndash or
derin
g al
l disp
lace
d pe
rson
s not
orig
inal
ly fr
om S
omal
iland
to le
ave
the
coun
try
and
that
the
Punt
land
aut
horit
ies a
re sa
id to
hav
e gr
own
war
y of
non
-Pun
tland
ers c
omin
g to
th
eir t
errit
ory
and
have
mad
e it
clea
r tha
t the
y w
ill o
nly
adm
it to
the
terr
itory
they
con
trol
thos
e w
ho a
re
of th
e sa
me
clan
or w
ho w
ere
prev
ious
ly re
siden
t in
the
area
Mor
e im
port
antly
the
aut
horit
ies o
f bot
h en
titie
s hav
e in
form
ed th
e re
spon
dent
Gov
ernm
ent o
f the
ir op
posit
ion
to th
e fo
rced
dep
orta
tions
of
in
the
case
of S
omal
iland
non
-Som
alila
nder
s and
in
the
case
of P
untla
nd ldquo
refu
gees
rega
rdle
ss o
f whi
ch
part
of S
omal
ia th
ey o
rigin
ally
cam
e fr
om w
ithou
t see
king
eith
er th
e ac
cept
ance
or p
rior a
ppro
valrdquo
of t
he
Punt
land
aut
horit
ies
In a
dditi
on b
oth
the
Som
alila
nd a
nd P
untla
nd a
utho
ritie
s hav
e in
dica
ted
that
they
do
not
acc
ept t
he E
U tr
avel
doc
umen
t
143
Whi
le it
app
ears
that
the
stan
ce o
f the
Som
alila
nd a
nd P
untla
nd a
utho
ritie
s has
led
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
Gov
ernm
ent t
o re
frai
n fr
om e
xpel
ling
reje
cted
asy
lum
seek
ers b
elon
ging
to th
e Be
nadi
ri to
thos
e re
gion
s th
e N
ethe
rland
s Gov
ernm
ent h
ave
insis
ted
that
such
exp
ulsio
ns a
re p
ossib
le a
nd h
ave
poin
ted
out t
hat i
n th
e ev
ent o
f an
expe
llee
bein
g de
nied
ent
ry h
e or
she
wou
ld b
e al
low
ed to
retu
rn to
the
Net
herla
nds
Bea
ring
in m
ind
that
acc
ordi
ng to
info
rmat
ion
prov
ided
by
the
resp
onde
nt G
over
nmen
t So
mal
is ar
e fr
ee to
ent
er a
nd le
ave
the
coun
try
as th
e St
ate
bord
ers a
re su
bjec
t to
very
few
con
trol
s th
e Co
urt a
ccep
ts th
at th
e Go
vern
men
t may
wel
l suc
ceed
in re
mov
ing
the
appl
ican
t to
eith
er S
omal
iland
or
Pun
tland
(alth
ough
in th
e lig
ht o
f a re
cent
BBC
repo
rt th
is is
not c
erta
in)
How
ever
thi
s by
no m
eans
co
nstit
utes
a g
uara
ntee
that
the
appl
ican
t on
ce th
ere
will
be
allo
wed
or e
nabl
ed to
stay
in th
e te
rrito
ry
and
with
no
mon
itorin
g of
dep
orte
d re
ject
ed a
sylu
m se
eker
s tak
ing
plac
e th
e Go
vern
men
t hav
e no
way
of
ver
ifyin
g w
heth
er o
r not
the
appl
ican
t suc
ceed
s in
gain
ing
adm
ittan
ce I
n vi
ew o
f the
pos
ition
take
n by
th
e Pu
ntla
nd a
nd p
artic
ular
ly th
e So
mal
iland
aut
horit
ies
it se
ems t
o th
e Co
urt r
athe
r unl
ikel
y th
at th
e ap
plic
ant w
ould
be
allo
wed
to se
ttle
ther
e C
onse
quen
tly t
here
is a
real
cha
nce
of h
is be
ing
rem
oved
or
of h
is ha
ving
no
alte
rnat
ive
but t
o go
to a
reas
of t
he c
ount
ry w
hich
bot
h th
e Go
vern
men
t and
UN
HCR
cons
ider
uns
afe
144
As r
egar
ds th
e isl
ands
off
the
coas
t of s
outh
ern
Som
alia
whi
ch a
re c
onsid
ered
ldquore
lativ
ely
safe
rdquo by
the
Gove
rnm
ent
the
Cour
t not
es th
at th
ese
are
inha
bite
d by
mem
bers
of t
he D
arod
Mar
ehan
cla
n an
d of
a m
inor
ity d
iffer
ent f
rom
the
one
to w
hich
the
appl
ican
t bel
ongs
It h
as n
ot b
een
sugg
este
d th
at
the
appl
ican
t wou
ld b
e ab
le to
obt
ain
clan
pro
tect
ion
ther
e A
s with
Som
alila
nd a
nd P
untla
nd t
here
are
sim
ilarly
no
guar
ante
es th
at th
e ap
plic
ant w
ould
be
able
to se
ttle
ther
e q
uite
apa
rt fr
om th
e fa
ct th
at th
e isl
ands
can
be
reac
hed
only
via
ldquore
lativ
ely
unsa
ferdquo
terr
itory
72 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
145
The
que
stio
n m
ust t
here
fore
be
exam
ined
whe
ther
if t
he a
pplic
ant w
ere
to e
nd u
p in
are
as o
f So
mal
ia o
ther
than
Som
alila
nd o
r Pun
tland
he
wou
ld ru
n a
real
risk
of b
eing
exp
osed
to tr
eatm
ent
cont
rary
to A
rtic
le 3
In
this
cont
ext
the
Cour
t is a
war
e th
at th
e Go
vern
men
t do
not c
onsid
er a
reas
in
Som
alia
ldquore
lativ
ely
unsa
ferdquo
beca
use
of a
ny ri
sk th
at in
divi
dual
s may
run
ther
e of
bei
ng su
bjec
ted
to
trea
tmen
t in
brea
ch o
f Art
icle
3 o
f the
Con
vent
ion
but
bec
ause
of a
n ov
eral
l situ
atio
n w
hich
is su
ch th
at
in th
e op
inio
n of
the
Min
ister
of I
mm
igra
tion
and
Inte
grat
ion
a re
turn
to th
ose
area
s wou
ld c
onst
itute
an
exce
ptio
nally
har
sh m
easu
re
146
The
Cou
rt c
onsid
ers t
hat t
he tr
eatm
ent t
o w
hich
the
appl
ican
t cla
imed
he
had
been
subj
ecte
d pr
ior
to h
is le
avin
g So
mal
ia c
an b
e cl
assif
ied
as in
hum
an w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 3
mem
bers
of a
cla
n be
at k
icke
d ro
bbed
int
imid
ated
and
har
asse
d hi
m o
n m
any
occa
sions
and
mad
e hi
m c
arry
out
forc
ed
labo
ur M
embe
rs o
f the
sam
e cl
an a
lso k
illed
his
fath
er a
nd ra
ped
his s
ister
The
Cou
rt n
otes
that
the
part
icul
ar ndash
and
con
tinui
ng ndash
vul
nera
bilit
y to
this
kind
of h
uman
righ
ts a
buse
s of m
embe
rs o
f min
oriti
es
like
the
Ashr
af h
as b
een
wel
l-doc
umen
ted
147
Whi
le th
e N
ethe
rland
s aut
horit
ies w
ere
of th
e op
inio
n th
at th
e pr
oble
ms e
xper
ienc
ed b
y th
e ap
plic
ant w
ere
to b
e se
en a
s a c
onse
quen
ce o
f the
gen
eral
ly u
nsta
ble
situa
tion
in w
hich
crim
inal
gan
gs
freq
uent
ly b
ut a
rbitr
arily
int
imid
ated
and
thre
aten
ed p
eopl
e th
e Co
urt i
s of t
he v
iew
that
that
is
insu
ffici
ent t
o re
mov
e th
e tr
eatm
ent m
eted
out
to th
e ap
plic
ant f
rom
the
scop
e of
Art
icle
3 A
s set
out
ab
ove
the
exist
ence
of t
he o
blig
atio
n no
t to
expe
l is n
ot d
epen
dent
on
whe
ther
the
risk
of th
e tr
eatm
ent
stem
s fro
m fa
ctor
s whi
ch in
volv
e th
e re
spon
sibili
ty d
irect
or i
ndire
ct o
f the
aut
horit
ies o
f the
rece
ivin
g co
untr
y an
d Ar
ticle
3 m
ay th
us a
lso a
pply
in si
tuat
ions
whe
re th
e da
nger
em
anat
es fr
om p
erso
ns o
r gr
oups
of p
erso
ns w
ho a
re n
ot p
ublic
offi
cial
s W
hat i
s rel
evan
t in
this
cont
ext i
s whe
ther
the
appl
ican
t w
as a
ble
to o
btai
n pr
otec
tion
agai
nst a
nd se
ek re
dres
s for
the
acts
per
petr
ated
aga
inst
him
The
Cou
rt
cons
ider
s tha
t thi
s was
not
the
case
Mor
eove
r ha
ving
rega
rd to
the
info
rmat
ion
avai
labl
e th
e Co
urt i
s fa
r fro
m p
ersu
aded
that
the
situa
tion
has u
nder
gone
such
a su
bsta
ntia
l cha
nge
for t
he b
ette
r tha
t it c
ould
be
said
that
the
risk
of th
e ap
plic
ant b
eing
subj
ecte
d to
this
kind
of t
reat
men
t ane
w h
as b
een
rem
oved
or
that
he
wou
ld b
e ab
le to
obt
ain
prot
ectio
n fr
om th
e (lo
cal)
auth
oriti
es T
here
is n
o in
dica
tion
ther
efor
e
that
the
appl
ican
t wou
ld fi
nd h
imse
lf in
a si
gnifi
cant
ly d
iffer
ent s
ituat
ion
from
the
one
he fl
ed
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 73
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
148
The
Cou
rt w
ould
furt
her t
ake
issue
with
the
natio
nal a
utho
ritie
srsquo a
sses
smen
t tha
t the
trea
tmen
t to
whi
ch th
e ap
plic
ant w
as su
bjec
ted
was
met
ed o
ut a
rbitr
arily
It a
ppea
rs fr
om th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
acc
ount
that
he
and
his
fam
ily w
ere
targ
eted
bec
ause
they
bel
onge
d to
a m
inor
ity a
nd fo
r tha
t rea
son
it w
as k
now
n th
at th
ey h
ad n
o m
eans
of p
rote
ctio
n th
ey w
ere
easy
pre
y as
wer
e th
e ot
her t
hree
Ash
raf f
amili
es li
ving
in
the
sam
e vi
llage
The
Cou
rt w
ould
add
that
in
its o
pini
on t
he a
pplic
ant c
anno
t be
requ
ired
to e
stab
lish
the
exist
ence
of f
urth
er sp
ecia
l dist
ingu
ishin
g fe
atur
es c
once
rnin
g hi
m p
erso
nally
in o
rder
to sh
ow th
at h
e w
as a
nd c
ontin
ues t
o be
per
sona
lly a
t risk
In
this
cont
ext i
t is t
rue
that
a m
ere
poss
ibili
ty o
f ill-
trea
tmen
t is
insu
ffici
ent t
o gi
ve ri
se to
a b
reac
h of
Art
icle
3 S
uch
a sit
uatio
n ar
ose
in th
e ca
se o
f Vilv
araj
ah a
nd
Oth
ers v
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
whe
re th
e Co
urt f
ound
that
the
poss
ibili
ty o
f det
entio
n an
d ill
-tre
atm
ent
exist
ed in
resp
ect o
f you
ng m
ale
Tam
ils re
turn
ing
to S
ri La
nka
The
Cou
rt th
en in
siste
d th
at th
e ap
plic
ants
sh
ow th
at sp
ecia
l dist
ingu
ishin
g fe
atur
es e
xist
ed in
thei
r cas
es th
at c
ould
or o
ught
to h
ave
enab
led
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
aut
horit
ies t
o fo
rese
e th
at th
ey w
ould
be
trea
ted
in a
man
ner i
ncom
patib
le w
ith
Artic
le 3
How
ever
in
the
pres
ent c
ase
the
Cour
t con
sider
s o
n th
e ba
sis o
f the
app
lican
trsquos a
ccou
nt a
nd
the
info
rmat
ion
abou
t the
situ
atio
n in
the
ldquorel
ativ
ely
unsa
ferdquo
area
s of S
omal
ia in
so fa
r as m
embe
rs o
f the
As
hraf
min
ority
are
con
cern
ed t
hat i
t is f
ores
eeab
le th
at o
n hi
s ret
urn
the
appl
ican
t wou
ld b
e ex
pose
d to
trea
tmen
t in
brea
ch o
f Art
icle
3 I
t mig
ht re
nder
the
prot
ectio
n of
fere
d by
that
pro
visio
n ill
usor
y if
in
add
ition
to th
e fa
ct o
f his
belo
ngin
g to
the
Ashr
af ndash
whi
ch th
e Go
vern
men
t hav
e no
t disp
uted
ndash t
he
appl
ican
t wer
e re
quire
d to
show
the
exist
ence
of f
urth
er sp
ecia
l dist
ingu
ishin
g fe
atur
es
149
The
fore
goin
g co
nsid
erat
ions
are
suffi
cien
t to
enab
le th
e Co
urt t
o co
nclu
de th
at th
e ex
pulsi
on o
f the
ap
plic
ant t
o So
mal
ia a
s env
isage
d by
the
resp
onde
nt G
over
nmen
t wou
ld b
e in
vio
latio
n of
Art
icle
3 o
f the
Co
nven
tion
rsquo
74 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
N v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no 265
6505
270
520
08
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
rem
oval
to U
gand
a ndash
inhu
man
and
deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent ndash
med
ical
trea
tmen
t
Para
s 4
2-45
lsquo42
In su
mm
ary
the
Cour
t obs
erve
s tha
t sin
ce D
v t
he U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m it
has
con
siste
ntly
app
lied
the
follo
win
g pr
inci
ples
Alie
ns w
ho a
re su
bjec
t to
expu
lsion
can
not i
n pr
inci
ple
clai
m a
ny e
ntitl
emen
t to
rem
ain
in th
e te
rrito
ry o
f a C
ontr
actin
g St
ate
in o
rder
to c
ontin
ue to
ben
efit
from
med
ical
soc
ial o
r ot
her f
orm
s of a
ssist
ance
and
serv
ices
pro
vide
d by
the
expe
lling
Sta
te T
he fa
ct th
at th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
ci
rcum
stan
ces
incl
udin
g hi
s life
exp
ecta
ncy
wou
ld b
e sig
nific
antly
redu
ced
if he
wer
e to
be
rem
oved
from
th
e Co
ntra
ctin
g St
ate
is no
t suf
ficie
nt in
itse
lf to
giv
e ris
e to
bre
ach
of A
rtic
le 3
The
dec
ision
to re
mov
e an
alie
n w
ho is
suffe
ring
from
a se
rious
men
tal o
r phy
sical
illn
ess t
o a
coun
try
whe
re th
e fa
cilit
ies f
or
the
trea
tmen
t of t
hat i
llnes
s are
infe
rior t
o th
ose
avai
labl
e in
the
Cont
ract
ing
Stat
e m
ay ra
ise a
n iss
ue
unde
r Art
icle
3 b
ut o
nly
in a
ver
y ex
cept
iona
l cas
e w
here
the
hum
anita
rian
grou
nds a
gain
st th
e re
mov
al
are
com
pelli
ng I
n th
e D
v th
e U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m c
ase
the
very
exc
eptio
nal c
ircum
stan
ces w
ere
that
the
appl
ican
t was
crit
ical
ly il
l and
app
eare
d to
be
clos
e to
dea
th c
ould
not
be
guar
ante
ed a
ny n
ursin
g or
m
edic
al c
are
in h
is co
untr
y of
orig
in a
nd h
ad n
o fa
mily
ther
e w
illin
g or
abl
e to
car
e fo
r him
or p
rovi
de h
im
with
eve
n a
basic
leve
l of f
ood
shel
ter o
r soc
ial s
uppo
rt
lsquo43
The
Cou
rt d
oes n
ot e
xclu
de th
at th
ere
may
be
othe
r ver
y ex
cept
iona
l cas
es w
here
the
hum
anita
rian
cons
ider
atio
ns a
re e
qual
ly c
ompe
lling
How
ever
it c
onsid
ers t
hat i
t sho
uld
mai
ntai
n th
e hi
gh th
resh
old
set i
n D
v t
he U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m a
nd a
pplie
d in
its s
ubse
quen
t cas
e-la
w w
hich
it re
gard
s as c
orre
ct in
pr
inci
ple
giv
en th
at in
such
cas
es th
e al
lege
d fu
ture
har
m w
ould
em
anat
e no
t fro
m th
e in
tent
iona
l act
s or
omiss
ions
of p
ublic
aut
horit
ies o
r non
-Sta
te b
odie
s b
ut in
stea
d fr
om a
nat
ural
ly o
ccur
ring
illne
ss a
nd th
e la
ck o
f suf
ficie
nt re
sour
ces t
o de
al w
ith it
in th
e re
ceiv
ing
coun
try
Ahm
ed v
Aus
tria
no
259
6494
17 Decem
ber1
996
Aire
y v
Irela
nd
no 628
973
9 Octob
er
1979
Ameg
niga
n v
the
Net
herla
nds (
dec)
no
256
2904
25 Novem
ber2
004
Arci
la H
enao
v th
e N
ethe
rland
s (de
c)
no 136
690324 June
20
03
BB v
Fra
nce
no
4719
98950
116
5
7 Septem
ber1
998
Bens
aid
v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
mn
o 44
59998
6 Februa
ry200
1
D v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no
302
40962 M
ay
1997
HLR
v Fr
ance
no
245
739429 Ap
ril
1997
Jallo
h v
Germ
any
[GC]
no
548
100011 July
2006
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 75
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo44
Alth
ough
man
y of
the
right
s it c
onta
ins h
ave
impl
icat
ions
of a
soci
al o
r eco
nom
ic n
atur
e th
e Co
nven
tion
is es
sent
ially
dire
cted
at t
he p
rote
ctio
n of
civ
il an
d po
litic
al ri
ghts
(see
Aire
y v
Irel
and
9 Octob
er197
9sect26SeriesA
no 32
)Fu
rthe
rmorein
herentin
thewho
leofthe
Con
ventionisasearch
for a
fair
bala
nce
betw
een
the
dem
ands
of t
he g
ener
al in
tere
st o
f the
com
mun
ity a
nd th
e re
quire
men
ts
of th
e pr
otec
tion
of th
e in
divi
dual
rsquos fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts (
see
Soer
ing
v th
e U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m7
July198
9
sect89
SeriesA
no 16
1)A
dvan
cesinmed
icalsc
ienceto
getherwith
socialand
econo
micdifferen
ces
betw
een
coun
trie
s e
ntai
l tha
t the
leve
l of t
reat
men
t ava
ilabl
e in
the
Cont
ract
ing
Stat
e an
d th
e co
untr
y of
or
igin
may
var
y co
nsid
erab
ly W
hile
it is
nec
essa
ry g
iven
the
fund
amen
tal i
mpo
rtan
ce o
f Art
icle
3 in
the
Conv
entio
n sy
stem
for
the
Cour
t to
reta
in a
deg
ree
of fl
exib
ility
to p
reve
nt e
xpul
sion
in v
ery
exce
ptio
nal
case
s A
rtic
le 3
doe
s not
pla
ce a
n ob
ligat
ion
on th
e Co
ntra
ctin
g St
ate
to a
llevi
ate
such
disp
ariti
es th
roug
h th
e pr
ovisi
on o
f fre
e an
d un
limite
d he
alth
car
e to
all
alie
ns w
ithou
t a ri
ght t
o st
ay w
ithin
its j
urisd
ictio
n
A fin
ding
to th
e co
ntra
ry w
ould
pla
ce to
o gr
eat a
bur
den
on th
e Co
ntra
ctin
g St
ates
lsquo45
Fin
ally
the
Cour
t obs
erve
s tha
t al
thou
gh th
e pr
esen
t app
licat
ion
in c
omm
on w
ith m
ost o
f tho
se
refe
rred
to a
bove
is c
once
rned
with
the
expu
lsion
of a
per
son
with
an
HIV
and
Aids
-rel
ated
con
ditio
n th
e sa
me
prin
cipl
es m
ust a
pply
in re
latio
n to
the
expu
lsion
of a
ny p
erso
n af
flict
ed w
ith a
ny se
rious
nat
ural
ly
occu
rrin
g ph
ysic
al o
r men
tal i
llnes
s whi
ch m
ay c
ause
suffe
ring
pai
n an
d re
duce
d lif
e ex
pect
ancy
and
re
quire
spec
ialis
ed m
edic
al tr
eatm
ent w
hich
may
not
be
so re
adily
ava
ilabl
e in
the
appl
ican
trsquos c
ount
ry o
f or
igin
or w
hich
may
be
avai
labl
e on
ly a
t sub
stan
tial c
ostrsquo
Kara
ra v
Fin
land
no
409
009829 May
1998
Keen
an v
Uni
ted
King
domn
o 27
22995
3 Ap
ril200
1
Kudl
a v
Pola
nd
[GC]n
o 30
21096
26
Octob
er200
0
Nda
ngoy
a v
Swed
en
(dec)22
June
200
4
no 178
6803
Pret
ty v
Uni
ted
King
domn
o 23
4602
29 April20
02
Pric
e v
Uni
ted
King
domn
o 33
39496
10
July200
1
SCC
v Sw
eden
(dec)no
465
5399
15 Feb
ruary20
00
Saad
i v It
aly
[GC]
no
372
0106
28 Feb
ruary20
08
Soer
ing
v Un
ited
King
dom
no 14
03888
7 July198
9
76 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
MSS
v B
elgi
um a
nd
Gre
ece
no 306
9609
210
120
11
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
cond
ition
s of d
eten
tion
ndash Ar
ticle
13
ECHR
ndash sh
ortc
omin
gs in
the
asyl
um p
roce
dure
Para
219
lsquo219
The
Cou
rt h
as h
eld
on n
umer
ous o
ccas
ions
that
to fa
ll w
ithin
the
scop
e of
Art
icle
3 th
e ill
- tre
atm
ent
mus
t att
ain
a m
inim
um le
vel o
f sev
erity
The
ass
essm
ent o
f thi
s min
imum
is re
lativ
e it
dep
ends
on
all t
he
circ
umst
ance
s of t
he c
ase
such
as t
he d
urat
ion
of th
e tr
eatm
ent a
nd it
s phy
sical
or m
enta
l effe
cts a
nd i
n so
me
inst
ance
s th
e se
x a
ge a
nd st
ate
of h
ealth
of t
he v
ictim
rsquo
Para
251
lsquo251
The
Cou
rt a
ttac
hes c
onsid
erab
le im
port
ance
to th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
stat
us a
s an
asyl
um-s
eeke
r and
as
such
a m
embe
r of a
par
ticul
arly
und
erpr
ivile
ged
and
vuln
erab
le p
opul
atio
n gr
oup
in n
eed
of sp
ecia
l pr
otec
tion
It n
otes
the
exist
ence
of a
bro
ad c
onse
nsus
at t
he in
tern
atio
nal a
nd E
urop
ean
leve
l con
cern
ing
this
need
for s
peci
al p
rote
ctio
n a
s evi
denc
ed b
y th
e Ge
neva
Con
vent
ion
the
rem
it an
d th
e ac
tiviti
es o
f th
e U
NHC
R an
d th
e st
anda
rds s
et o
ut in
the
Rece
ptio
n Di
rect
ive
rsquo
Para
254
lsquo254
It o
bser
ves t
hat t
he si
tuat
ion
in w
hich
the
appl
ican
t has
foun
d hi
mse
lf is
part
icul
arly
serio
us H
e al
lege
dly
spen
t mon
ths l
ivin
g in
a st
ate
of th
e m
ost e
xtre
me
pove
rty
unab
le to
cat
er fo
r his
mos
t bas
ic
need
s fo
od h
ygie
ne a
nd a
pla
ce to
live
Add
ed to
that
was
the
ever
-pre
sent
fear
of b
eing
att
acke
d an
d ro
bbed
and
the
tota
l lac
k of
any
like
lihoo
d of
his
situa
tion
impr
ovin
g It
was
to e
scap
e fr
om th
at si
tuat
ion
of in
secu
rity
and
of m
ater
ial a
nd p
sych
olog
ical
wan
t tha
t he
trie
d se
vera
l tim
es to
leav
e Gr
eece
rsquo
AA v
Gre
ece
no
121
860822 July
2010
Amuu
r v F
ranc
e
no 197
769225 June
19
96
Assa
nidz
e v
Geor
gia
[GC]
nos
715
030
1
8 Ap
ril200
4
Bati
and
Oth
ers
v Tu
rkey
nos
330
979
6 an
d57
83400
3 Ju
ne
2004
Bosp
horu
s Hav
a Yo
llari
Turiz
m v
Tic
aret
An
onim
Sirk
eti v
Irel
and
[GC]n
o 45
03698
30
June
200
5
Bron
iow
ski v
Pol
and
[GC]n
o 31
44396
28
Sep
tembe
r200
5
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 77
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Brya
n v
Uni
ted
King
domn
o 19
17891
22
Novem
ber1
995
Budi
na v
Rus
sia (
dec)
no
456
030516 June
20
09
Caki
ci v
Tur
key
[GC]
no
236
57948 Ju
ly
1999
Cham
aiumlev
Sha
may
ev
and
Oth
ers v
Geo
rgia
an
d Ru
ssia
no
363
780212 Ap
ril
2005
Čonka
v Be
lgiu
m
no 515
6499
5 Februa
ry200
2
De W
ilde
Oom
s and
Ve
rsyp
nos
283
266
28
356
6 2
899
66
18 Ju
ne197
1
Dora
n v
Irela
nd
no 503
899931 July
2003
Gebr
emed
hin
[Gab
eram
adhi
en]
v Fr
ancen
o 25
38905
26
April20
07
HLR
v Fr
ance
no
245
739429 Ap
ril
1997
78 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Jaba
ri v T
urke
y
no 400359811 July
2000
KRS v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(dec)no
3273308
2 De
cember2
008
Kudl
a v P
olan
d [GC]no 3021096
26 Octob
er2000
Labi
ta c
Italy
[GC]
no
26772956 April
2000
Mus
ial v
Pol
and
[GC]
no
245579425 March
1999
Muumls
lim v
Turk
ey
no 535669925 Ap
ril
2005
NA v
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 259040717 July
2008
Oumlcal
an v
Turk
ey [G
C]
no 462219912 May
2005
Oršu
š and
Oth
ers
v Cro
atia
[GC]
no
157660316 March
2010
Pala
di v
Mol
dova
[GC]
no
398060510 March
2009
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 79
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Peer
s v G
reec
e
no 285249519 Ap
ril
2001
Popo
v v R
ussia
no
268530413 July
2006
Pret
ty v
Uni
ted
King
domno 234602
29 April2
002
Qur
aish
i v B
elgi
um
no 61300812 May
2009
Riad
and
Idia
b v B
elgi
um n
os 2
9787
03
and
2981
003
24 Janu
ary2008
SD v
Gre
ece
no
535410711 June
20
09
Saad
i v It
aly
[GC]
no
3720106
28 Fe
bruary2008
Sala
h Sh
eekh
v
the
Net
herla
nds
no
19480411 Janu
ary
2007
Sano
ma
Uitg
ever
s BV
v th
e Ne
ther
land
s no
3822403
14 Sep
tembe
r2010
80 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Soer
ing
v Un
ited
King
domno 1403888
7 July1989
Stap
leto
n v
Irela
nd
(dec)no
5658807
4 May2010
TI v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(dec)no
4384487
7 March2000
Tabe
sh c
Gregravec
e
no 825607
26 Novem
ber2
009
Tham
pibi
llai v
the
Neth
erla
nds
no 6135000
17 Fe
bruary2004
Tyre
r v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 58567225 Ap
ril
1978
Vene
ma
v th
e Ne
ther
land
s no
357319729 Janu
ary
2002
Vere
in g
egen
Ti
erfa
brike
n Sc
hwei
z (V
gT) v
Switz
erla
nd
(no
2) [G
C]
no 327720230 June
20
09
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 81
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Vilv
araj
ah a
nd O
ther
s v
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m
nos 1
3163
87
13
164
87 1
3165
87
13
447
87 1
3448
87
30 Octob
er1991
Y v
Russ
iano 2011307
4 De
cembe
r2008
ECtH
R
Sufi
and
Elm
i v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
nos 8
319
07 a
nd
1144
907
280
620
11
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
risk
of to
rtur
e an
d ill
-tre
atm
ent ndash
rem
oval
to c
ount
ry o
f orig
in ndash
relia
nce
on c
ount
ry
repo
rts ndash
relo
catio
n
Para
266
lsquo266
In
the
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m a
n ap
plica
tion
for a
sylu
m o
r for
subs
idia
ry p
rote
ctio
n w
ill fa
il if
the
decis
ion-
mak
er co
nsid
ers t
hat i
t wou
ld b
e re
ason
able
ndash a
nd n
ot u
ndul
y ha
rsh
ndash to
exp
ect t
he a
pplic
ant t
o re
loca
te
(Janu
zi H
amid
Gaa
far a
nd M
oham
med
v S
ecre
tary
of S
tate
for t
he H
ome
Depa
rtm
ent [
2006
] UKH
L 5 a
nd
AH (S
udan
) v S
ecre
tary
of S
tate
for t
he H
ome
Depa
rtm
ent [
2007
] UKH
L 49)
The
Cou
rt re
calls
that
Art
icle
3 do
es n
ot a
s suc
h p
reclu
de C
ontr
actin
g St
ates
from
pla
cing
relia
nce
on th
e ex
isten
ce o
f an
inte
rnal
fli
ght a
ltern
ativ
e in
thei
r ass
essm
ent o
f an
indi
vidu
alrsquos
claim
that
a re
turn
to h
is co
untr
y of
orig
in w
ould
ex
pose
him
to a
real
risk
of b
eing
subj
ecte
d to
trea
tmen
t pro
scrib
ed b
y th
at p
rovi
sion
(Sal
ah S
heek
h v
the
Net
herla
nds
no 1
948
04sect141
ECH
R20
07-I(extracts)C
haha
l v t
he U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m15 Novem
ber1
996
sect98
Rep
orts
of J
udgm
ents
and
Dec
ision
s 199
6-V
and
Hila
l v t
he U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m n
o 4
5276
99sectsect67
ndash68
ECHR
200
1-II)
How
ever
the
Cou
rt h
as h
eld
that
relia
nce
on a
n in
tern
al fl
ight
alte
rnat
ive
does
not
affe
ct th
e re
spon
sibili
ty o
f the
exp
ellin
g Co
ntra
ctin
g St
ate
to e
nsur
e th
at th
e ap
plica
nt is
not
as a
resu
lt of
its d
ecisi
on
to e
xpel
exp
osed
to tr
eatm
ent c
ontr
ary
to A
rticl
e 3
of th
e Co
nven
tion
(Sal
ah S
heek
h v
the
Net
herla
nds
cited
abo
vesect141
and
TI
v th
e Un
ited
King
dom
(dec
) n
o 4
3844
98
ECH
R 20
00-II
I) T
here
fore
as
a pr
econ
ditio
n of
rely
ing
on a
n in
tern
al fl
ight
alte
rnat
ive
cert
ain
guar
ante
es h
ave
to b
e in
pla
ce t
he p
erso
n to
be
expe
lled
mus
t be
able
to tr
avel
to th
e ar
ea co
ncer
ned
gai
n ad
mitt
ance
and
sett
le th
ere
faili
ng w
hich
an
issu
e un
der A
rticl
e 3
may
aris
e th
e m
ore
so if
in th
e ab
senc
e of
such
gua
rant
ees t
here
is a
pos
sibili
ty o
f hi
s end
ing
up in
a p
art o
f the
coun
try
of o
rigin
whe
re h
e m
ay b
e su
bjec
ted
to il
l-tre
atm
entrsquo
A v
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 10019978841096
23 Sep
tembe
r1998
Abdu
laziz
Cab
ales
and
Ba
lkan
dali
v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m n
os 9
214
80
9473
81
947
481
28
May198
5
Al-A
gha
v Ro
man
ia
no 409
3302
12 Ja
nuary20
10
Bouj
lifa
v Fr
ance
no
122
199
674
194
0
21 Octob
er199
7
Chah
al v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(GC
) no
224
1493
15 Novem
ber1
995
82 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
s 2
82-2
83
lsquo282
If t
he d
ire h
uman
itaria
n co
nditi
ons i
n So
mal
ia w
ere
sole
ly o
r eve
n pr
edom
inan
tly a
ttrib
utab
le
to p
over
ty o
r to
the
Stat
ersquos l
ack
of re
sour
ces t
o de
al w
ith a
nat
ural
ly o
ccur
ring
phen
omen
on s
uch
as
a dr
ough
t th
e te
st in
N v
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
may
wel
l hav
e be
en c
onsid
ered
to b
e th
e ap
prop
riate
on
e H
owev
er i
t is c
lear
that
whi
le d
roug
ht h
as c
ontr
ibut
ed to
the
hum
anita
rian
crisi
s th
at c
risis
is pr
edom
inan
tly d
ue to
the
dire
ct a
nd in
dire
ct a
ctio
ns o
f the
par
ties t
o th
e co
nflic
t Th
e re
port
s ind
icat
e th
at a
ll pa
rtie
s to
the
conf
lict h
ave
empl
oyed
indi
scrim
inat
e m
etho
ds o
f war
fare
in d
ense
ly p
opul
ated
ur
ban
area
s with
no
rega
rd to
the
safe
ty o
f the
civ
ilian
pop
ulat
ion
Thi
s fac
t alo
ne h
as re
sulte
d in
wid
espr
ead
disp
lace
men
t and
the
brea
kdow
n of
soci
al p
oliti
cal a
nd e
cono
mic
infr
astr
uctu
res
M
oreo
ver
the
situa
tion
has b
een
grea
tly e
xace
rbat
ed b
y al
-Sha
baab
rsquos re
fusa
l to
perm
it in
tern
atio
nal a
id
agen
cies
to o
pera
te in
the
area
s und
er it
s con
trol
des
pite
the
fact
that
bet
wee
n a
third
and
a h
alf o
f all
Som
alis
are
livin
g in
a si
tuat
ion
of se
rious
dep
rivat
ion
lsquo283
Co
nseq
uent
ly th
e Co
urt d
oes n
ot c
onsid
er th
e ap
proa
ch a
dopt
ed in
N v
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
to b
e ap
prop
riate
in th
e ci
rcum
stan
ces o
f the
pre
sent
cas
e R
athe
r it
pref
ers t
he a
ppro
ach
adop
ted
in M
SS
v
Belg
ium
and
Gre
ece
whi
ch re
quire
s it t
o ha
ve re
gard
to a
n ap
plic
antrsquos
abi
lity
to c
ater
for h
is m
ost b
asic
ne
eds
such
as f
ood
hyg
iene
and
shel
ter
his v
ulne
rabi
lity
to il
l-tre
atm
ent a
nd th
e pr
ospe
ct o
f his
situa
tion
impr
ovin
g w
ithin
a re
ason
able
tim
e-fr
ame
rsquo
D v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no
302
40962 M
ay
1997
Doug
oz v
Gre
ece
no
409
07986 M
arch
2001
HLR
v Fr
ance
no
245
739429 Ap
ril
1997
Hila
l v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 452
76996 M
arch
2001
Jaba
ri v
Turk
ey
no 400
359811 July
2000
Kley
n an
d O
ther
s v
the
Net
herla
nds
[GC]
nos
393
439
8
3965
198
431
479
8
4666
499
6 M
ay200
3
MSS
v B
elgi
um
and
Gree
ce [
GC]
no 306
9609
21 Ja
nuary20
11
Mam
atku
lov
and
Aska
rov
v Tu
rkey
[GC]
no
s 468
279
9 an
d 46
95199
4 Feb
ruary
2005
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 83
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
McF
eele
y an
d ot
hers
v
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 8317782 Octob
er
1984
Milo
sevi
c v th
e Ne
ther
land
s (de
c)
no 776310119 March
2002
MPP
Gol
ub v
Ukr
aine
(dec)no
677805
18 Octob
er2005
N v
Finl
and
no
388850226 July
2005
NA v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no
259040717 July
2008
Peer
s v G
reec
e
no 285249519 Ap
ril
2001
Pelle
grin
i v It
aly
(dec
) no
773630
1 26 May
2005
Riad
and
Idia
b v B
elgi
um n
os 2
9787
03
and
2981
003
24 Janu
ary2008
SD v
Gre
ece
no
535410711 June
20
09
84 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Saad
i v It
aly
[GC]
no
372
0106
28 Feb
ruary20
08
Said
v th
e N
ethe
rland
s
no 234
502
5 Ju
ly
2005
Sala
h Sh
eekh
v
the
Net
herla
nds
no
194
804
11 Janu
ary
2007
Selv
anay
agam
v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(dec)no
579
8100
12 Decem
ber2
002
T v
Uni
ted
King
dom
[GC]n
o 24
72494
16
Decem
ber1
999
TI v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(dec)no
438
4498
7 March200
0
Uumlne
r v th
e N
ethe
rland
s [GC]n
o 46
41099
18
Octob
er200
6
Vilv
araj
ah a
nd O
ther
s v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no
s 131
638
7
1316
487
131
658
7
1344
787
134
488
7
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 85
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
SHH
v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 603
6710
290
120
13
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
expu
lsion
to A
fgha
nist
an ndash
real
risk
of i
ll tr
eatm
ent
Para
78
lsquo78
The
Cou
rt o
bser
ves a
t the
out
set t
hat
alth
ough
the
appl
ican
t app
lied
for
and
was
refu
sed
asy
lum
in
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
he
has n
ot c
ompl
aine
d be
fore
the
Cour
t tha
t his
rem
oval
to A
fgha
nist
an w
ould
put
hi
m a
t risk
of d
elib
erat
e ill
-tre
atm
ent f
rom
any
par
ty e
ither
on
acco
unt o
f his
past
act
iviti
es w
ith H
izb-i-
Isla
mi o
r for
any
oth
er re
ason
rsquo
Para
83
lsquo83
How
ever
the
par
ties d
isput
ed w
heth
er a
ny su
ppor
t wou
ld b
e av
aila
ble
to th
e ap
plic
ant i
n Af
ghan
istan
The
Gov
ernm
ent m
aint
aine
d th
at th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
cla
im n
ot to
hav
e an
y co
ntac
t with
his
siste
rs in
Afg
hani
stan
had
bee
n im
plic
itly
reje
cted
by
the
Imm
igra
tion
Judg
e an
d th
at h
e ha
d fa
iled
to
subm
it an
y ev
iden
ce to
supp
ort t
hat c
laim
In
any
even
t he
had
not
pro
vide
d an
y re
ason
why
he
coul
d no
t mak
e co
ntac
t with
his
siste
rs u
pon
his r
etur
n to
Afg
hani
stan
By
cont
rast
the
app
lican
t did
not
acc
ept
that
this
part
of h
is cl
aim
had
bee
n re
ject
ed b
y th
e Im
mig
ratio
n Ju
dge
He
cont
inue
d to
cla
im a
s he
had
done
the
dom
estic
pro
ceed
ings
tha
t the
re w
as n
o on
e av
aila
ble
to c
are
for h
im in
Afg
hani
stan
and
that
al
thou
gh h
e ha
d tw
o sis
ters
in th
e co
untr
y th
ey w
ere
both
mar
ried
and
livin
g w
ith th
eir o
wn
fam
ilies
In
any
even
t he
no
long
er h
ad a
ny c
onta
ct w
ith e
ither
of t
hem
rsquo
Para
s 8
5-86
lsquo85
In re
latio
n to
the
appl
ican
trsquos fi
rst g
roun
d th
at h
e w
ould
be
at g
reat
er ri
sk o
f vio
lenc
e in
Afg
hani
stan
du
e to
his
disa
bilit
y th
e Co
urt n
otes
that
the
appl
ican
t has
relie
d sig
nific
antly
upo
n th
e br
ief c
omm
ents
m
ade
by th
e AI
T in
GS
(set
out
at p
arag
raph
s 28-
29 a
bove
) In
that
cas
e th
e AI
T w
hen
expl
aini
ng th
at
ther
e m
ay b
e ca
tego
ries o
f peo
ple
who
may
be
able
to e
stab
lish
an e
nhan
ced
risk
of in
disc
rimin
ate
viol
ence
in A
fgha
nist
an g
ave
as p
ossib
le e
xam
ples
bot
h th
ose
who
wou
ld b
e pe
rcei
ved
to b
e ldquoc
olla
bora
tors
rdquo an
d di
sabl
ed p
erso
ns H
owev
er t
he C
ourt
doe
s not
agr
ee th
at th
e AI
Trsquos c
omm
ents
alo
ne
can
give
subs
tant
ive
supp
ort t
o th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
cla
im I
ndee
d th
e AI
T cl
arifi
ed in
the
sam
e pa
ragr
aph
of
that
det
erm
inat
ion
that
they
wer
e un
able
to g
ive
a lis
t of r
isk c
ateg
orie
s or t
o st
ate
that
any
par
ticul
ar
occu
patio
n or
stat
us w
ould
put
a p
erso
n in
to su
ch a
cat
egor
y in
vie
w o
f the
ldquopa
ucity
of t
he e
vide
ncerdquo
be
fore
them
To
the
cont
rary
the
AIT
mer
ely
reco
rded
that
ther
e ldquom
ay b
e su
ch c
ateg
orie
srdquo d
epen
dent
up
on th
e ev
iden
ce a
vaila
ble
The
AIT
em
phas
ised
that
thei
r com
men
ts sh
ould
not
be
take
n to
indi
cate
th
at th
e di
sabl
ed w
ere
mem
bers
of e
nhan
ced
risk
grou
ps w
ithou
t pro
of to
that
effe
ct
N v
Uni
ted
King
dom
[GC]2
7 May200
8
no 265
6505
30 Octob
er199
1
UKU
T G
S (A
rtic
le 1
5(c)
in
disc
rimin
ate
viol
ence
) Af
ghan
istan
CG
[200
9] U
KAIT
000
44
21 Octob
er200
9
UKU
T H
K an
d O
ther
s (m
inor
s ndash
indi
scrim
inat
e vi
olen
ce
ndash fo
rced
recr
uitm
ent
by Ta
liban
ndash c
onta
ct
with
fam
ily m
embe
rs)
Afgh
anist
an C
G [2
010]
U
KUT
378
(IAC)
23
Novem
ber2
010
UKU
T A
A (u
natt
ende
d ch
ildre
n) A
fgha
nist
an
CG [2
012]
UKU
T 00
016
(IAC)
1 Feb
ruary20
12
UKU
T A
K (A
rtic
le 1
5(c)
) Af
ghan
istan
CG
[201
2]
UKU
T 00
163
(IAC)
18
May201
2
MSS
v B
elgi
um
and
Gree
ce [
GC]
no 306
9609
21 Ja
nuary20
11
86 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo86
The
Cou
rt c
onsid
ers i
t to
be si
gnifi
cant
that
the
appl
ican
t has
faile
d to
add
uce
any
addi
tiona
l su
bsta
ntiv
e ev
iden
ce to
supp
ort h
is cl
aim
that
disa
bled
per
sons
are
per
se a
t gre
ater
risk
of v
iole
nce
as
oppo
sed
to o
ther
diff
icul
ties s
uch
as d
iscrim
inat
ion
and
poor
hum
anita
rian
cond
ition
s th
an th
e ge
nera
l Af
ghan
pop
ulat
ion
The
evi
denc
e fr
om i
nter
alia
UN
HCR
UN
AMA
the
UN
CESC
R th
e AI
HRC
and
the
Uni
ted
Stat
es o
f Am
eric
a St
ate
Depa
rtm
ent (
see
para
grap
hs 4
1-49
abo
ve) m
akes
no
refe
renc
e to
disa
bled
pe
rson
s bei
ng a
t gre
ater
risk
of v
iole
nce
ill-t
reat
men
t or a
ttac
ks in
Afg
hani
stan
rsquo
Para
89
lsquo89
The
Cou
rt fi
nds t
hat t
he p
rinci
ples
of N
v t
he U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m sh
ould
app
ly to
the
circ
umst
ance
s of
the
pres
ent c
ase
for t
he fo
llow
ing
reas
ons
Firs
t th
e Co
urt r
ecal
ls th
at N
con
cern
ed th
e re
mov
al o
f an
HIV
-pos
itive
app
lican
t to
Uga
nda
whe
re h
er li
fesp
an w
as li
kely
to b
e re
duce
d on
acc
ount
of t
he fa
ct
that
the
trea
tmen
t fac
ilitie
s the
re w
ere
infe
rior t
o th
ose
avai
labl
e in
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
In
reac
hing
its
conc
lusio
ns t
he C
ourt
not
ed th
at th
e al
lege
d fu
ture
har
m w
ould
em
anat
e no
t fro
m th
e in
tent
iona
l act
s or
om
issio
n of
pub
lic a
utho
ritie
s or n
on-S
tate
bod
ies b
ut fr
om a
nat
ural
ly o
ccur
ring
illne
ss a
nd th
e la
ck
of su
ffici
ent r
esou
rces
to d
eal w
ith it
in th
e re
ceiv
ing
coun
try
The
Cou
rt a
lso st
ated
that
Art
icle
3 d
id n
ot
plac
e an
obl
igat
ion
on th
e Co
ntra
ctin
g St
ate
to a
llevi
ate
disp
ariti
es in
the
avai
labi
lity
of m
edic
al tr
eatm
ent
betw
een
the
Cont
ract
ing
Stat
e an
d th
e co
untr
y of
orig
in th
roug
h th
e pr
ovisi
on o
f fre
e an
d un
limite
d he
althcaretoallalienswith
outa
righ
ttostaywith
initsjurisd
ictio
n(ib
idsect44)The
Cou
rtackno
wledg
es
that
in
the
pres
ent c
ase
the
appl
ican
trsquos d
isabi
lity
cann
ot b
e co
nsid
ered
to b
e a
ldquonat
ural
lyrdquo
occu
rrin
g ill
ness
and
doe
s not
requ
ire m
edic
al tr
eatm
ent
Nev
erth
eles
s it
is c
onsid
ered
to b
e sig
nific
ant t
hat i
n bo
th
scen
ario
s the
futu
re h
arm
wou
ld e
man
ate
from
a la
ck o
f suf
ficie
nt re
sour
ces t
o pr
ovid
e ei
ther
med
ical
tr
eatm
ent o
r wel
fare
pro
visio
n ra
ther
than
the
inte
ntio
nal a
cts o
r om
issio
ns o
f the
aut
horit
ies o
f the
re
ceiv
ing
Stat
ersquo
RC v
Sw
eden
no
418
27079 M
arch
2010
Jaba
ri v
Turk
ey
no 400
359811 July
2000
Saad
i v It
aly
[GC]
no
372
0106
28 Feb
ruary20
08
Mam
atku
lov
and
Aska
rov
v Tu
rkey
[GC]
no
s 468
279
9 an
d 46
95199
4 Feb
ruary
2005
Hila
l v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 452
76996 M
arch
2001
HLR
v Fr
ance
no
245
739429 Ap
ril
1997
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 87
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
91
lsquo91
Thi
rd a
lthou
gh in
Suf
i and
Elm
i v t
he U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m c
ited
abov
e th
e Co
urt f
ollo
wed
the
appr
oach
se
t out
in M
SS
th
is w
as b
ecau
se o
f the
exc
eptio
nal a
nd e
xtre
me
cond
ition
s pre
vaili
ng in
sout
h an
d ce
ntra
l Som
alia
In
part
icul
ar t
here
was
cle
ar a
nd e
xten
sive
evid
ence
bef
ore
the
Cour
t tha
t the
hu
man
itaria
n cr
isis i
n So
mal
ia w
as p
redo
min
atel
y du
e to
the
dire
ct a
nd in
dire
ct a
ctio
ns o
f all
part
ies t
o th
e co
nflic
t who
had
em
ploy
ed in
disc
rimin
ate
met
hods
of w
arfa
re a
nd h
ad re
fuse
d to
per
mit
inte
rnat
iona
l ai
d ag
enci
es to
ope
rate
( pa
ragr
aph
282
of th
e Su
fi an
d El
mi j
udgm
ent)
On
the
curr
ent e
vide
nce
avai
labl
e
the
Cour
t is n
ot a
ble
to c
oncl
ude
that
the
situa
tion
in A
fgha
nist
an a
lbei
t ver
y se
rious
as a
resu
lt of
on
goin
g co
nflic
t is
com
para
ble
to th
at o
f sou
th a
nd c
entr
al S
omal
ia F
irst
unlik
e So
mal
ia w
hich
has
bee
n w
ithou
t a fu
nctio
ning
cen
tral
Gov
ernm
ent s
ince
199
1 A
fgha
nist
an h
as a
func
tioni
ng c
entr
al G
over
nmen
t an
d fu
nctio
ning
infr
astr
uctu
res r
emai
n in
pla
ce S
econ
d A
fgha
nist
an a
nd in
par
ticul
ar K
abul
to w
here
th
e ap
plic
ant w
ill b
e re
turn
ed r
emai
ns u
nder
Gov
ernm
ent c
ontr
ol u
nlik
e th
e m
ajor
ity o
f sou
th a
nd
cent
ral S
omal
ia w
hich
sin
ce 2
008
has
bee
n un
der t
he c
ontr
ol o
f Isla
mic
insu
rgen
ts T
hird
alth
ough
U
NHC
R ha
s obs
erve
d th
at th
e hu
man
itaria
n sp
ace
in A
fgha
nist
an is
dec
linin
g in
som
e ar
eas a
s a re
sult
of
the
cont
inui
ng in
stab
ility
(see
par
agra
ph 4
3 ab
ove)
the
re re
mai
ns a
sign
ifica
nt p
rese
nce
of in
tern
atio
nal
aid
agen
cies
in A
fgha
nist
an u
nlik
e in
Som
alia
whe
re in
tern
atio
nal a
id a
genc
ies w
ere
refu
sed
perm
issio
n to
ope
rate
in m
ultip
le a
reas
Fou
rth
eve
n th
ough
the
diffi
culti
es a
nd in
adeq
uaci
es in
the
prov
ision
for
pers
ons w
ith d
isabi
litie
s in
Afgh
anist
an c
anno
t be
unde
rsta
ted
it c
anno
t be
said
that
such
pro
blem
s are
as
a re
sult
of th
e de
liber
ate
actio
ns o
r om
issio
ns o
f the
Afg
han
auth
oriti
es ra
ther
than
att
ribut
able
to a
lack
of
reso
urce
s In
deed
the
evi
denc
e su
gges
ts th
at th
e Af
ghan
aut
horit
ies a
re ta
king
alb
eit s
mal
l st
eps t
o im
prov
e pr
ovisi
on fo
r disa
bled
per
sons
by
for e
xam
ple
the
Nat
iona
l Disa
bilit
y Ac
tion
Plan
200
8-20
11
(see
par
agra
ph 4
8 ab
ove)
and
the
prov
ision
of f
inan
cial
supp
ort b
y th
e M
inist
ry o
f Lab
our
Soci
al A
ffairs
M
arty
rs a
nd th
e Di
sabl
ed to
80
000
disa
bled
per
sons
in A
fgha
nist
an (s
ee p
arag
raph
49
abov
e) T
he C
ourt
do
es n
ot a
ccep
t tha
t the
repo
rt o
f the
Aus
tria
n Ce
ntre
for C
ount
ry o
f Orig
in a
nd A
sylu
m R
esea
rch
and
Docu
men
tatio
n (s
ee a
bove
at p
arag
raph
51)
lend
s sup
port
to th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
cla
im b
ecau
se th
at re
port
w
as p
ublis
hed
in 2
007
and
the
late
r Dec
embe
r 201
0 U
NHC
R Gu
idel
ines
mak
e no
sim
ilar r
ecom
men
datio
ns
in re
latio
n to
the
retu
rn o
f disa
bled
per
sons
to A
fgha
nist
anrsquo
N v
Fin
land
no
388
850226 July
2005
Colli
ns a
nd A
kasie
bie
v Sw
eden
(dec
) no
239
44058 M
arch
2007
Sala
h Sh
eekh
v
the
Net
herla
nds
no
194
804
11 Janu
ary
2007
NA
v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 259
040717 July
2008
Sufi
and
Elm
i v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m n
os 8
319
07
and11
44907
28 June
20
11
Al-S
kein
i and
Oth
ers
v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m [G
C]
no 557
21077 Ju
ly
2011
Neu
linge
r and
Shu
ruk
v Sw
itzer
land
[GC]
no
416
15076 Ju
ly
2010
88 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
Aden
Ahm
ed v
Mal
ta
no 553
5212
230
720
13
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
proh
ibiti
on o
f tor
ture
ndash d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t ndash A
rtic
le 5
ECH
R ndash
right
to li
bert
y an
d se
curit
y ndash
law
ful a
rres
t or d
eten
tion
ndash re
view
of l
awfu
lnes
s of d
eten
tion
ndash sp
eedi
ness
of r
evie
w
Para
99
rsquo99
In v
iew
of a
ll th
e ab
ove-
men
tione
d ci
rcum
stan
ces t
aken
as a
who
le w
hich
the
appl
ican
t as
a d
etai
ned
imm
igra
nt e
ndur
ed fo
r a to
tal o
f fou
rtee
n an
d a
half
mon
ths
and
in th
e lig
ht o
f the
app
lican
trsquos sp
ecifi
c sit
uatio
n th
e Co
urt i
s of t
he o
pini
on th
at th
e cu
mul
ativ
e ef
fect
of t
he c
ondi
tions
com
plai
ned
of
dim
inish
ed th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
hum
an d
igni
ty a
nd a
rous
ed in
her
feel
ings
of a
ngui
sh a
nd in
ferio
rity
capa
ble
of h
umili
atin
g an
d de
basin
g he
r and
pos
sibly
bre
akin
g he
r phy
sical
or m
oral
resis
tanc
e In
sum
the
Co
urt c
onsid
ers t
hat t
he c
ondi
tions
of t
he a
pplic
antrsquos
det
entio
n in
Her
mes
Blo
ck a
mou
nted
to d
egra
ding
tr
eatm
ent w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 3
of t
he C
onve
ntio
nrsquo
AA v
Gree
ce
no 121860822 July
2010
AK v
Aust
ria
no 2083292
1 De
cember1
993
Akdi
var a
nd O
ther
s v T
urke
yno 2189393
16 September1
996
Akso
y v Tu
rkey
no
2198793
18 Decem
ber1
996
Alve
r v E
ston
ia
no 6481201
8 No
vember2
005
Amie
and
Oth
ers
v Bul
garia
no 5814908
12 Fe
bruary2013
Amuu
r v Fr
ance
no
197769225 June
19
96
Anan
yev a
nd O
ther
s v R
ussia
nos
425
250
7 an
d 60
800
08
10 Janu
ary2
012
Bele
vitsk
iy v R
ussia
no
72967011 M
arch
2007
Bene
dikt
ov v
Russ
ia
no 1060210 May2007
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 89
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Bozk
ir an
d O
ther
s v
Turk
eyno 2458904
26 Fe
bruary2013
Bulu
t and
Yavu
z v Tu
rkey
(dec)no
7306501
28 M
ay2002
Card
ot v
Fran
ce
no 110698419 March
1991
Chah
al v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(GC
) no
2241493
15 Novem
ber1
995
Cior
ap v
Mol
dova
(no
2)
no 74810620 July
2010
Doug
oz v
Gre
ece
no
40907986 M
arch
2001
E v
Norw
ay
no 117018529Au
gust
1990
Fras
ik v
Pol
and
no
22933025 Janu
ary
2010
GO v
Rus
sia
no 3924903
18 Octob
er2011
90 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Gera
de
Petr
i Te
staf
erra
ta B
onici
Gh
axaq
v M
alta
no
26771075 April
2011
Gubi
n v
Russ
ia
no 82170417 June
20
10
Hand
ysid
e v
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
mno 549372
7 De
cembe
r1976
Haza
r and
Oth
ers
v Tu
rkey
(dec
) no
s 625
660
0
6256
700
625
680
0 etal10 Janu
ary2002
Iord
ache
v R
oman
ia
no 68170214 Octob
er
2008
John
ston
and
Oth
ers
v Ire
land
no 969782
18 Decem
ber1
986
Kade
m v
Mal
ta
no 55263009 Janu
ary
2003
Kara
levi
cius v
Lith
uani
a
no 53254997 April
2005
Keen
an v
Uni
ted
King
domno 2722995
3 Ap
ril2001
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 91
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Khud
oyor
ov v
Rus
sia
no 684702
8 No
vembe
r2005
Kudl
a v
Pola
nd
[GC]no 3021096
26 Octob
er2000
Loul
ed M
asso
ud
v M
altano 2434008
27 Ju
ly2010
MSS
v B
elgi
um
and
Gree
ce [
GC]
no 306960921 Janu
ary
2011
Mam
atku
lov a
nd
Aska
rov v
Turk
ey [G
C]
nos 4
6827
99
and
46951994 Fe
bruary
2005
McF
arla
ne v
Irel
and
[GC]no 3133306
10 Sep
tembe
r2010
Mus
ial v
Pol
and
[GC]
no
245579425 March
1999
Paul
and
Aud
rey
Edw
ards
v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
mno 4647799
14 M
arch2002
Peer
s v G
reec
e
no 285249519 Ap
ril
2001
92 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Popo
v v Fr
ance
no
s 394
720
7 an
d 394740719 Janu
ary
2012
Rahm
ani a
nd D
inev
a v B
ulga
riano 2011608
10 M
ay2012
Raza
v Bu
lgar
ia
no 3146508
11 Fe
bruary2010
Rehb
ock v
Slov
enia
no
2946295
28 Novem
ber2
000
Riad
and
Idia
b v B
elgi
um n
os 2
9787
03
and
2981
003
24 Janu
ary2
008
Rom
an K
aras
ev
v Rus
siano 3025103
25 Novem
ber2
010
SD v
Gree
ce
no 535410711 June
20
09
STS v
the
Neth
erla
nds
no 277057 Ju
ne2011
Saad
i v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
[GC]no 1322903
29 Janu
ary2
008
Sabe
ur B
en A
li v M
alta
no
358929729 June
20
00
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 93
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Step
hens
v M
alta
(no
1)
no 119560721 Ap
ril
2009
Step
hens
v M
alta (n
o 2)
no
337400621 Ap
ril
2009
Tabe
sh c
Gregravec
e
no 825607
26 Novem
ber2
009
Torr
eggi
ani a
nd O
ther
s v
Italy
nos
435
170
9
4688
209
554
000
9
5787
509
615
350
9
3531
510
and
37818108 Janu
ary
2013
Van
Oos
terw
ijck
v Be
lgiu
mno 765476
6 No
vembe
r1980
Vern
illo v
Fran
ce
no 1188985
20 Fe
bruary1991
Vislo
guzo
v v
Ukra
ine
no
323620220 May
2010
Wal
ker v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(dec
) no
349799725 Janu
ary
2000
94 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
X v
Swed
en
no 102308211 May
1983
X v
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 940385 M
ay1982
Z an
d O
ther
s v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m [G
C]
no 293929510 May
2001
Zarb
v M
alta
no
16631044 Ju
ly
2006
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 95
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
[GC]
Tara
khel
v S
witz
erla
nd
no 292
1712
041
120
14
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R - i
nhum
an a
nd d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t ndash sy
stem
atic
def
icie
ncie
s in
rece
ptio
n ar
rang
emen
ts in
th
e ab
senc
e of
indi
vidu
al g
uara
ntee
s con
cern
ing
care
Para
91
rsquo91
Sw
itzer
land
mus
t the
refo
re b
e co
nsid
ered
to b
ear r
espo
nsib
ility
und
er A
rtic
le 3
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n in
th
e pr
esen
t cas
ersquo
Para
99
lsquo99
With
mor
e sp
ecifi
c re
fere
nce
to m
inor
s th
e Co
urt h
as e
stab
lishe
d th
at it
is im
port
ant t
o be
ar in
min
d th
at th
e ch
ildrsquos
extr
eme
vuln
erab
ility
is th
e de
cisiv
e fa
ctor
and
take
s pre
cede
nce
over
con
sider
atio
ns
rela
ting
to th
e st
atus
of i
llega
l im
mig
rant
(see
Mub
ilanz
ila M
ayek
a an
d Ka
niki
Mitu
nga
v B
elgi
um
no 1
3178
03sect55ECH
R20
06-XIan
d Po
pov
v F
ranc
e n
os 3
9472
07
and
3947
407
sect9119 Janu
ary
2012
) Ch
ildre
n ha
ve sp
ecifi
c ne
eds t
hat a
re re
late
d in
par
ticul
ar to
thei
r age
and
lack
of i
ndep
ende
nce
bu
t also
to th
eir a
sylu
m-s
eeke
r sta
tus
The
Cou
rt h
as a
lso o
bser
ved
that
the
Conv
entio
n on
the
Righ
ts
of th
e Ch
ild e
ncou
rage
s Sta
tes t
o ta
ke th
e ap
prop
riate
mea
sure
s to
ensu
re th
at a
chi
ld w
ho is
seek
ing
to o
btai
n re
fuge
e st
atus
enj
oys p
rote
ctio
n an
d hu
man
itaria
n as
sista
nce
whe
ther
the
child
is a
lone
or
acco
mpa
nied
by
his o
r her
par
ents
(see
to th
is ef
fect
Pop
ov c
ited
abov
e sect
91)
rsquo
Para
119
lsquo119
Thi
s req
uire
men
t of ldquo
spec
ial p
rote
ctio
nrdquo o
f asy
lum
seek
ers i
s par
ticul
arly
impo
rtan
t whe
n th
e pe
rson
s con
cern
ed a
re c
hild
ren
in v
iew
of t
heir
spec
ific
need
s and
thei
r ext
rem
e vu
lner
abili
ty T
his
appl
ies e
ven
whe
n a
s in
the
pres
ent c
ase
the
child
ren
seek
ing
asyl
um a
re a
ccom
pani
ed b
y th
eir p
aren
ts
(see
Pop
ovcite
dab
ovesect91)A
ccording
lyth
ereceptioncond
ition
sforchildrenseekingasylum
mustb
ead
apte
d to
thei
r age
to
ensu
re th
at th
ose
cond
ition
s do
not ldquo
crea
te
for
them
a si
tuat
ion
of st
ress
and
an
xiet
y w
ith p
artic
ular
ly tr
aum
atic
con
sequ
ence
srdquo (s
ee m
utat
is m
utan
dis
Pop
ovcite
dab
ovesect102
)O
ther
wise
the
con
ditio
ns in
que
stio
n w
ould
att
ain
the
thre
shol
d of
seve
rity
requ
ired
to c
ome
with
in th
e sc
ope
of th
e pr
ohib
ition
und
er A
rtic
le 3
of t
he C
onve
ntio
nrsquo
Aksu
v T
urke
y [G
C]
nos 4
149
04 a
nd
4102
904
15 March
2012
Beld
joud
i v F
ranc
e
no 120
838626 March
1992
Bosp
horu
s Hav
a Yo
llari
Turiz
m v
e Ti
care
t An
onim
Sirk
eti v
Irel
and
[GC]n
o 45
03698
30
June
200
5
Budi
na v
Rus
sia (
dec)
no
456
030516 June
20
09
Chap
man
v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m [G
C]
no 272
3895
18 Ja
nuary20
01
Guer
ra a
nd
Oth
ers v
Ital
y
no 116
199
673
593
2
19 Feb
ruary19
98
HLR
v Fr
ance
no
245
739429 Ap
ril
1997
96 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
s 1
20-1
22
lsquo120
In
the
pres
ent c
ase
as t
he C
ourt
has
alre
ady
obse
rved
(see
par
agra
ph 1
15 a
bove
) in
vie
w o
f the
cu
rren
t situ
atio
n as
rega
rds t
he re
cept
ion
syst
em in
Ital
y an
d al
thou
gh th
at si
tuat
ion
is no
t com
para
ble
to th
e sit
uatio
n in
Gre
ece
whi
ch th
e Co
urt e
xam
ined
in M
SS
th
e po
ssib
ility
that
a si
gnifi
cant
num
ber
of a
sylu
m se
eker
s rem
oved
to th
at c
ount
ry m
ay b
e le
ft w
ithou
t acc
omm
odat
ion
or a
ccom
mod
ated
in
over
crow
ded
faci
litie
s with
out a
ny p
rivac
y or
eve
n in
insa
lubr
ious
or v
iole
nt c
ondi
tions
is n
ot u
nfou
nded
It
is th
eref
ore
incu
mbe
nt o
n th
e Sw
iss a
utho
ritie
s to
obta
in a
ssur
ance
s fro
m th
eir I
talia
n co
unte
rpar
ts th
at
on th
eir a
rriv
al in
Ital
y th
e ap
plic
ants
will
be
rece
ived
in fa
cilit
ies a
nd in
con
ditio
ns a
dapt
ed to
the
age
of
the
child
ren
and
that
the
fam
ily w
ill b
e ke
pt to
geth
er
lsquo121
The
Cou
rt n
otes
that
acc
ordi
ng to
the
Italia
n Go
vern
men
t fa
mili
es w
ith c
hild
ren
are
rega
rded
as
a p
artic
ular
ly v
ulne
rabl
e ca
tego
ry a
nd a
re n
orm
ally
take
n ch
arge
of w
ithin
the
SPRA
R ne
twor
k T
his
syst
em a
ppar
ently
gua
rant
ees t
hem
acc
omm
odat
ion
food
hea
lth c
are
Ital
ian
clas
ses
refe
rral
to so
cial
se
rvic
es l
egal
adv
ice
voc
atio
nal t
rain
ing
app
rent
ices
hips
and
hel
p in
find
ing
thei
r ow
n ac
com
mod
atio
n
How
ever
in
thei
r writ
ten
and
oral
obs
erva
tions
the
Italia
n Go
vern
men
t did
not
pro
vide
any
furt
her d
etai
ls on
the
spec
ific
cond
ition
s in
whi
ch th
e au
thor
ities
wou
ld ta
ke c
harg
e of
the
appl
ican
ts
Itistrue
thatatthe
hea
ringof12 Februa
ry201
4theSw
issGovernm
entstatedthatth
eFM
Ohad
be
en in
form
ed b
y th
e Ita
lian
auth
oriti
es th
at i
f the
app
lican
ts w
ere
retu
rned
to It
aly
they
wou
ld b
e ac
com
mod
ated
in B
olog
na in
one
of t
he fa
cilit
ies f
unde
d by
the
ERF
Nev
erth
eles
s in
the
abse
nce
of
deta
iled
and
relia
ble
info
rmat
ion
conc
erni
ng th
e sp
ecifi
c fa
cilit
y th
e ph
ysic
al re
cept
ion
cond
ition
s and
the
pres
erva
tion
of th
e fa
mily
uni
t th
e Co
urt c
onsid
ers t
hat t
he S
wiss
aut
horit
ies d
o no
t pos
sess
suffi
cien
t as
sura
nces
that
if r
etur
ned
to It
aly
the
appl
ican
ts w
ould
be
take
n ch
arge
of i
n a
man
ner a
dapt
ed to
the
age
of th
e ch
ildre
n
lsquo122
It f
ollo
ws t
hat
wer
e th
e ap
plic
ants
to b
e re
turn
ed to
Ital
y w
ithou
t the
Sw
iss a
utho
ritie
s hav
ing
first
ob
tain
ed in
divi
dual
gua
rant
ees f
rom
the
Italia
n au
thor
ities
that
the
appl
ican
ts w
ould
be
take
n ch
arge
of i
n a
man
ner a
dapt
ed to
the
age
of th
e ch
ildre
n an
d th
at th
e fa
mily
wou
ld b
e ke
pt to
geth
er t
here
wou
ld b
e a
viol
atio
n of
Art
icle
3 o
f the
Con
vent
ion
rsquo
Halil Yuumlksel A
kıncı
v Tu
rkey
no 39
12504
11
Decem
ber2
012
Hirs
i Jam
aa a
nd
Oth
ers v
Ital
y [G
C]
no 277
6509
23 Feb
ruary20
12
Jaba
ri v
Turk
ey
no 400
359811 July
2000
Kudl
a v
Pola
nd
[GC]n
o 30
21096
26
Octob
er200
0
M a
nd O
ther
s v
Bulg
aria
no
414
160826 July
2011
MSS
v B
elgi
um
and
Gree
ce [
GC]
no 306
9609
21 Ja
nuary20
11
Mic
haud
v F
ranc
e
no 123
2311
6 De
cembe
r201
2
Moh
amm
ed H
usse
in
and
Oth
ers v
the
Net
herla
nds a
nd It
aly
(dec)no
277
2510
2 Ap
ril201
3
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 97
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Mub
ilanz
ila M
ayek
a an
d Ka
niki
Mitu
nga
v Be
lgiu
m no
1317
803
12 Octob
er2006
Muumls
lim v
Turk
ey
no 535669926 Ap
ril
2005
Niza
mov
and
Oth
ers
v Ru
ssia
nos
226
361
3
2403
413
243
341
3
24328137 M
ay2014
Popo
v v Fr
ance
no
s 394
720
7 an
d 394740719 Janu
ary
2012
Saad
i v It
aly
[GC]
no
3720106
28 Fe
bruary2008
Sala
h Sh
eekh
v
the
Net
herla
nds
no
19480411 Janu
ary
2007
Soer
ing
v Un
ited
King
domno 1403888
7 July1989
Vilv
araj
ah a
nd O
ther
s v
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m
nos 1
3163
87
13
164
87 1
3165
87
13
447
87 1
3448
87
30 Octob
er1991
98 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
Moh
amad
c G
regravece
no 705
8611(in
French
with
Eng
lish
sum
mar
y)
111
2 2
014
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
inhu
man
and
deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent ndash
det
entio
n - u
nacc
ompa
nied
min
or ndash
effe
ctiv
e ac
cess
to
pro
cedu
res
Uno
ffici
al tr
ansla
tion
Para
84
lsquo84
How
ever
des
pite
the
fact
that
the
auth
oriti
es w
ere
unde
r an
oblig
atio
n un
der t
he re
leva
nt
dom
estic
legi
slatio
n to
pla
ce th
e ap
plic
ant i
n su
ch a
stru
ctur
e n
o st
eps w
ere
take
n in
that
dire
ctio
n T
he
Governmen
tdoe
snotprovide
anyexplana
tionasto
whyth
eau
thoritiespersis
tedasfrom3 Ja
nuary
2011
whe
n th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
med
ical
exa
min
atio
n to
ok p
lace
in
deta
inin
g hi
m a
t the
bor
der p
ost i
nste
ad
of se
ekin
g al
tern
ativ
e pl
acem
ent s
olut
ions
The
Gov
ernm
ent d
oes n
ot p
rovi
de a
ny e
vide
nce
of a
ny
atte
mpt
to m
ake
any
form
of c
onta
ct to
this
effe
ct w
ith th
e co
mpe
tent
bod
ies d
urin
g th
e en
tire
perio
d from
3 Ja
nuaryto9 M
arch201
1whe
ntheau
thoritiesatthe
borde
rposto
fSou
fliin
form
edth
epu
blic
pros
ecut
or o
f the
app
lican
trsquos m
ajor
ity a
nd th
e en
d of
the
proc
eedi
ngs u
nder
Art
icle
19
of D
ecre
e N
o
220
2007
rsquo
Para
86
lsquo86
In v
iew
of t
he fa
ct th
at th
e ap
plic
ant h
ad n
ot b
een
plac
ed in
a re
cept
ion
stru
ctur
e su
itabl
e fo
r min
ors
in
acc
orda
nce
with
the
appl
icab
le le
gisla
tion
as w
ell a
s the
impo
ssib
ility
of d
epor
ting
him
dur
ing
his
min
ority
and
the
lack
of s
teps
take
n by
the
auth
oriti
es to
do
so a
fter h
e ha
d re
ache
d th
e ag
e of
maj
ority
theCo
urtcon
clud
esth
atth
eap
plican
trsquosdeten
tionwasnotlsquolaw
fulrsquowith
inth
emea
ning
ofA
rticle5sect1f)
of th
e Co
nven
tion
and
that
ther
e w
as a
vio
latio
n of
that
pro
visio
nrsquo
FH v
Gre
ece
no
784561131 July
2014
Barja
maj
v G
reec
e
no 36657112 M
ay
2013
Rahi
mi v
Gre
ece
no
8687085 April
2011
RU
v G
reec
e
no 2237087 Ju
ne2011
CD a
nd O
ther
s v G
reec
e
nos 3
3441
10
334
681
0 an
d 33
476
10
19 Decem
ber2
013
BM v
Gre
ece
no
5360811
19 Decem
ber2
013
McG
linch
ey a
nd O
ther
s v
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 503909929 Ap
ril
2003
AF v
Gre
ece
no
537091113 June
20
13
Hous
ein
v Gr
eece
no
7182511
24 Octob
er2013
Mah
mun
di a
nd O
ther
s v
Gree
ceno 1490210
31 Ju
ly2012
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 99
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Riad
and
Idia
b v B
elgi
um n
os 2
9787
03
and
2981
003
24 Janu
ary2008
Peer
s v G
reec
e
no 285249519 Ap
ril
2001
Kudl
a v
Pola
nd
[GC]no 3021096
26 Octob
er2000
Tabe
sh c
Gregravec
e
no 825607
26 Novem
ber2
009
SD v
Gre
ece
no
535410711 June
20
09
Chah
al v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(GC
) no
2241493
15 Novem
ber1
995
100 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
Aara
bi c
Gregrave
ce
no 397
6609(in
French
with
Eng
lish
sum
mar
y)
020
4 2
015
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
dete
ntio
n ndash
acco
mm
odat
ion
cent
re ndash
effe
ctiv
e ac
cess
to p
roce
dure
s ndash u
nacc
ompa
nied
m
inor
ndash b
est i
nter
ests
of t
he c
hild
Uno
ffici
al tr
ansla
tion
Para
s 4
4-45
lsquo44
The
Cou
rt a
lso n
otes
two
othe
r ele
men
ts w
hich
supp
ort t
he v
iew
that
the
com
pete
nt a
utho
ritie
s w
ere
not l
acki
ng in
goo
d fa
ith in
dea
ling
with
the
ques
tion
of th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
age
in th
e pr
esen
t cas
e
Firs
tly o
n th
e ab
ove-
men
tione
d ar
rest
repo
rt i
n ad
ditio
n to
the
appl
ican
trsquos n
ame
and
date
of b
irth
ap
pear
the
nam
es o
f thr
ee o
ther
per
sons
who
had
dec
lare
d to
the
auth
oriti
es th
at th
ey w
ere
min
ors a
nd
had
been
regi
ster
ed a
s suc
h T
he C
ourt
thus
sees
no
part
icul
ar re
ason
why
the
appl
ican
t wou
ld n
ot h
ave
been
regi
ster
ed a
s a m
inor
if h
e ha
d hi
mse
lf de
clar
ed th
at fa
ct to
the
com
pete
nt a
utho
ritie
s It
shou
ld
be re
calle
d in
this
conn
ectio
n th
at a
t the
tim
e of
his
arre
st th
e ap
plic
ant w
as a
lmos
t eig
htee
n ye
ars o
ld
Cons
eque
ntly
sinc
e he
had
not
him
self
raise
d hi
s min
ority
to th
e do
mes
tic a
utho
ritie
s it
wou
ld n
ot h
ave
been
obv
ious
for t
hem
to c
onsid
er th
is po
ssib
ility
on
thei
r ow
n in
itiat
ive
Fur
ther
mor
e th
e Co
urt n
otes
thaton28
July200
9theOfficeofthe
UnitedNationsHighCo
mmiss
ione
rforRefug
eesinformed
the
domestic
autho
ritieso
fthe
app
lican
trsquosre
alageThe
AliensPoliceDirectoratewasdiligentand
on30
July
2009
it re
ferr
ed th
e m
atte
r to
the
com
pete
nt p
ublic
pro
secu
tor i
n or
der t
o tr
ansf
er th
e ap
plic
ant t
o ac
com
mod
atio
n fo
r min
ors
lsquo45
The
Cou
rt c
onsid
ers t
hat t
he c
ondu
ct o
f the
com
pete
nt a
utho
ritie
s des
crib
ed a
bove
supp
orts
the
idea
th
at th
ey a
cted
in g
ood
faith
in th
is re
gard
Con
sequ
ently
the
Cou
rt c
anno
t im
pute
to th
em th
e fa
ct th
at
the
appl
ican
t was
not
regi
ster
ed a
s a m
inor
at t
he ti
me
of h
is ar
rest
For
the
sam
e re
ason
the
Cou
rt w
ill
exam
ine
the
appl
ican
trsquos c
ompl
aint
s abo
ut h
is co
nditi
ons o
f det
entio
n as
com
plai
nts r
aise
d by
an
adul
t pe
rson
atthe
timeofth
eeven
tsn
amelyup
to30 July200
9th
eda
tefrom
whichth
ena
tiona
lautho
rities
trea
ted
him
as a
min
orrsquo
Kala
chni
kov
v Ru
ssia
no
470
959915 July
2002
Efre
mid
ze v
Gre
ece
no
332
250821 June
20
11
Tabe
sh c
Gregrave
ce
no 825
607
26
Novem
ber2
009
Kudl
a v
Pola
nd
[GC]n
o 30
21096
26
Octob
er200
0
Peer
s v G
reec
e
no 285
249519 Ap
ril
2001
Riad
and
Idia
b v
Belg
ium
no
s 297
870
3 an
d 29
81003
24 Janu
ary
2008
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 101
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
AA v
Gre
ece
no
121
860822 July
2010
Anan
yev
and
Oth
ers
v Ru
ssia
nos
425
250
7 an
d 60
800
08
10 Ja
nuary20
12
AF c
Gregrave
ce
no 537
091113 June
20
13
Sias
ios e
t al
v Gr
eece
no
303
03074 Ju
ne
2009
Vafia
dis v
Gre
ece
no
249
81077 Ju
ly
2009
Shuv
aev
v Gr
eece
no
824
907
29
Octob
er200
9
Hors
hill
v Gr
eece
no
704
27111Aug
ust
2013
Lica
v G
reec
e
no 742
791017 July
2012
BM v
Gre
ece
no
536
0811
19 Decem
ber2
013
Bygy
lash
vili
v Gr
eece
no
581
6410
25 Sep
tembe
r201
2
102 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
RU v
Gre
ece
no
223
708
7 Ju
ne
2011
Rahi
mi v
Gre
ece
no
868
708
5 April
2011
Asla
nis v
Gre
ece
no
364
0110
17 Octob
er201
3
De lo
s San
tos a
nd
de la
Cru
z v G
reec
e
nos 2
134
12 a
nd
2161
1226 June
201
4
Ahm
ade
v Gr
eece
no
505
2009
25 Sep
tembe
r201
2
Barja
maj
v G
reec
e
no 366
57112 M
ay
2013
Khur
oshv
ili v
Gre
ece
no
581
6510
12 Decem
ber2
013
Vučković and
Others
v Se
rbia
[GC]
no
171
531125Match
2014
SD v
Gre
ece
no
535
410711 June
20
09
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 103
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
Abdi
Mah
amud
v M
alta
no 567
9613
030
520
16
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
proh
ibiti
on o
f tor
ture
- de
tent
ion
- deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent ndash
Art
icle
5 E
CHR
ndash re
view
of
law
fuln
ess o
f det
entio
n ndash
spee
dine
ss o
f rev
iew
ndash m
edic
al re
port
s
Para
89
rsquo89
In v
iew
of t
he a
pplic
antrsquos
vul
nera
bilit
y as
a re
sult
of h
er h
ealth
all
the
abov
e-m
entio
ned
circ
umst
ance
s n
amel
y th
e fa
ct th
at th
e ap
plic
ant h
ad n
o ac
cess
to o
utdo
or e
xerc
ise fo
r any
thin
g be
twee
n ei
ght a
nd tw
elve
wee
ks t
he p
oor e
nviro
nmen
t for
out
door
exe
rcise
in th
e re
mai
ning
per
iod
the
lack
of
spec
ific
mea
sure
s to
coun
ter a
ct th
e co
ld t
he la
ck o
f fem
ale
staf
f th
e lit
tle p
rivac
y of
fere
d in
the
cent
re
and
the
fact
thes
e co
nditi
ons p
ersis
ted
for o
ver s
ixte
en m
onth
s le
ad th
e Co
urt t
o co
nclu
de th
at th
e cu
mul
ativ
e ef
fect
of t
he c
ondi
tions
com
plai
ned
of d
imin
ished
the
appl
ican
trsquos h
uman
dig
nity
and
aro
used
in
her
feel
ings
of a
ngui
sh a
nd in
ferio
rity
capa
ble
of h
umili
atin
g an
d de
basin
g he
r and
pos
sibly
bre
akin
g he
r phy
sical
or m
oral
resis
tanc
e In
sum
the
Cou
rt c
onsid
ers t
hat t
he c
ondi
tions
of t
he a
pplic
antrsquos
de
tent
ion
in H
erm
es B
lock
am
ount
ed to
deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 3
of t
he
Conv
entio
nrsquo
Vala
šinas
v L
ithua
nia
no
445
5898
24 Octob
er200
1
Torr
eggi
ani a
nd O
ther
s v
Italy
nos
435
170
9
4688
209
554
000
9
5787
509
615
350
9
3531
510
and
37
81810
8 Ja
nuary
2013
Doug
oz v
Gre
ece
no
409
07986 M
arch
2001
Riad
and
Idia
b v
Belg
ium
no
s 297
870
3 an
d 29
81003
24 Janu
ary
2008
MSS
v B
elgi
um
and
Gree
ce [
GC]
no 306
9609
21 Ja
nuary20
11
Loul
ed M
asso
ud
v M
altan
o 24
34008
27
July201
0
Saad
i v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
[GC]n
o 13
22903
29
Janu
ary20
08
104 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Yara
shon
en v
Tur
key
no
727
101124 June
20
14
Tabe
sh c
Gregrave
ce
no 825
607
26
Novem
ber2
009
Step
hens
v M
alta
(n
o 2)
no 33
74006
21
April20
09
Siza
rev
v U
krai
ne
no 171
1604
17 Ja
nuary20
13
Aden
Ahm
ed v
Mal
ta
no 553
521223 July
2013
SD v
Gre
ece
no
535
410711 June
20
09
Suso
Mus
a v
Mal
ta
no 423
371223 July
2013
Abdi
Ahm
ed a
nd o
ther
s v
Mal
tan
o 43
98513
16
Sep
tembe
r201
4
Mik
alau
skas
v M
alta
no
445
810
23 July
2013
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 105
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Nes
hkov
and
O
ther
s v B
ulga
ria
nos 3
6925
10
21
487
12 7
2893
12
73
196
12 7
7718
12
and
9717
13
27
Janu
ary20
15
Nur
mag
omed
ov
v Ru
ssia
no 30
13802
7 June
200
7
Selc
uk a
nd A
kser
v
Turk
ey n
os 2
3184
94
and23
18594
24 Ap
ril
1998
Pret
ty v
Uni
ted
King
domn
o 23
460
29 April20
02
106 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R (G
C)
JK a
nd O
ther
s v S
wed
en
no 591
6612
230
820
16
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
risk
of to
rtur
e or
to in
hum
an o
r deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent ndash
risk
on
retu
rn to
Iraq
Para
72
lsquo72
The
Gov
ernm
ent f
urth
er co
nten
ded
that
ther
e w
as n
o re
ason
to b
elie
ve th
at th
e fir
st a
pplic
ant a
nd
his f
amily
wou
ld fi
nd th
emse
lves
in a
par
ticul
arly
vul
nera
ble
situa
tion
upon
retu
rnin
g to
Bag
hdad
The
Go
vern
men
t agr
eed
with
the
Cham
ber t
hat t
here
was
insu
fficie
nt e
vide
nce
to co
nclu
de th
at o
win
g to
thei
r pe
rson
al ci
rcum
stan
ces
the
appl
icant
s wou
ld fa
ce a
real
risk
of b
eing
subj
ecte
d to
trea
tmen
t con
trar
y to
Ar
ticle
3 o
f the
Con
vent
ion
if re
turn
ed to
Iraq
rsquo
Para
79
lsquo79
The
gen
eral
prin
ciple
s con
cern
ing
Artic
le 3
in e
xpul
sion
case
s hav
e be
en se
t out
in S
aadi
v It
aly
([G
C] n
o 3
7201
06sectsect12
4-13
3ECH
R20
08)a
ndm
ostrecen
tlyin
FG v
Sw
eden
([GC
] no
436
111
1
ECHR
201
6) T
he re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
s of t
he la
tter j
udgm
ent r
ead
as fo
llow
s
ldquo111
Th
e Co
urt r
eite
rate
s tha
t Con
trac
ting
Stat
es h
ave
the
right
as a
mat
ter o
f wel
l-est
ablis
hed
inte
rnat
iona
l law
and
subj
ect t
o th
eir t
reat
y ob
ligat
ions
inc
ludi
ng th
e Co
nven
tion
to co
ntro
l the
ent
ry
resid
ence
and
exp
ulsio
n of
alie
ns (s
ee f
or e
xam
ple
Hirs
i Jam
aa a
nd O
ther
s v I
taly
[GC]
no
277
650
9
sect11
3ECH
R20
12Uuml
ner v
the
Net
herla
nds [
GC]
no 4
6410
99sect54ECH
R20
06-XIIA
bdul
aziz
Cab
ales
and
Ba
lkand
ali v
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
28 May198
5sect67SeriesA
no94and
Bou
jlifa
v F
ranc
e21 Octob
er
1997
sect42R
epor
ts o
f Jud
gmen
ts a
nd D
ecisi
ons 1
997-
VI)
How
ever
the
exp
ulsio
n of
an
alie
n by
a C
ontr
actin
g St
ate
may
giv
e ris
e to
an
issue
und
er A
rticl
e 3
and
hen
ce e
ngag
e th
e re
spon
sibili
ty o
f tha
t Sta
te u
nder
th
e Co
nven
tion
whe
re su
bsta
ntia
l gro
unds
hav
e be
en sh
own
for b
elie
ving
that
the
pers
on in
que
stio
n if
de
port
ed w
ould
face
a re
al ri
sk o
f bei
ng su
bjec
ted
to tr
eatm
ent c
ontr
ary
to A
rticl
e 3
in th
e de
stin
atio
n co
untr
y In
thes
e cir
cum
stan
ces
Artic
le 3
impl
ies a
n ob
ligat
ion
not t
o de
port
the
pers
on in
que
stio
n to
that
co
untr
y (s
ee a
mon
g ot
her a
utho
ritie
s Sa
adi v
Ita
ly [G
C] n
o 3
7201
06sectsect12
4-12
5ECH
R20
08)
112
The
ass
essm
ent o
f whe
ther
ther
e ar
e su
bsta
ntia
l gro
unds
for b
elie
ving
that
the
appl
icant
face
s suc
h a
real
risk
inev
itabl
y re
quire
s the
Cou
rt to
exa
min
e th
e co
nditi
ons i
n th
e de
stin
atio
n co
untr
y in
the
light
of
the
stan
dard
s of A
rticl
e 3
of th
e Co
nven
tion
(see
Mam
atku
lov
and
Aska
rov
v Tu
rkey
[GC]
nos
468
279
9 an
d 46
951
99sect67ECH
R20
05-I)The
sestan
dardse
ntailthatthe
ill-treatmen
tthe
app
licanta
llegesh
ewillface
if re
turn
ed m
ust a
ttain
a m
inim
um le
vel o
f sev
erity
if it
is to
fall
with
in th
e sc
ope
of A
rticl
e 3
The
ass
essm
ent
of th
is le
vel i
s rel
ativ
e d
epen
ding
on
all t
he ci
rcum
stan
ces o
f the
case
(see
Hila
l v t
he U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 4
5276
99sect60ECH
R20
01-II)rsquo
Baha
ddar
v th
e Ne
ther
land
s no
1451996764965
19 Fe
bruary1998
Chah
al v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(GC
) no
2241493
15 Novem
ber1
995
Collin
s and
Aka
siebi
e v
Swed
en (d
ec)
no 23944058 M
arch
2007
DNW
v Sw
eden
no
2994610
6 De
cembe
r2012
FG v
Swed
en [G
C]
no 436111123 March
2016
FH v
Swed
en
no 326210620 Janu
ary
2009
HLR
v Fr
ance
no
245739429 Ap
ril
1997
Hila
l v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 45276996 M
arch
2001
Hirs
i Jam
aa a
nd
Oth
ers v
Ital
y [G
C]
no 2776509
23 Fe
bruary2012
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 107
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
83
lsquo83
In
the
Cour
trsquos c
ase-
law
the
prin
cipl
e of
ex
nunc
eva
luat
ion
of th
e ci
rcum
stan
ces h
as b
een
esta
blish
ed
in a
num
ber o
f cas
es T
his p
rinci
ple
has m
ost r
ecen
tly b
een
set o
ut in
FG
v S
wed
en (c
ited
abov
e)
ldquo115
If
the
appl
ican
t has
not
alre
ady
been
dep
orte
d th
e m
ater
ial p
oint
in ti
me
for t
he a
sses
smen
t m
ust b
e th
at o
f the
Cou
rtrsquos
cons
ider
atio
n of
the
case
(see
Cha
halcitedab
ovesect86)A
fullan
dex
nu
nc e
valu
atio
n is
requ
ired
whe
re it
is n
eces
sary
to ta
ke in
to a
ccou
nt in
form
atio
n th
at h
as c
ome
to
light
afte
r the
fina
l dec
ision
by
the
dom
estic
aut
horit
ies w
as ta
ken
(see
for
exa
mpl
e M
aslo
v v
Aus
tria
[G
C] n
o 1
638
03sectsect87
-95ECH
R20
08and
Suf
i and
Elm
i v t
he U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
mcite
dab
ovesect215
)Th
is sit
uatio
n ty
pica
lly a
rises
whe
n a
s in
the
pres
ent c
ase
dep
orta
tion
is de
laye
d as
a re
sult
of th
e in
dica
tion
by th
e Co
urt o
f an
inte
rim m
easu
re u
nder
Rul
e 39
of t
he R
ules
of C
ourt
Sin
ce th
e na
ture
of
the
Cont
ract
ing
Stat
esrsquo r
espo
nsib
ility
und
er A
rtic
le 3
in c
ases
of t
his k
ind
lies i
n th
e ac
t of e
xpos
ing
an
indi
vidu
al to
the
risk
of il
l tre
atm
ent
the
exist
ence
of t
he ri
sk m
ust b
e as
sess
ed p
rimar
ily w
ith re
fere
nce
to th
ose
fact
s whi
ch w
ere
know
n or
oug
ht to
hav
e be
en k
now
n by
the
Cont
ract
ing
Stat
e at
the
time
of th
e ex
pulsi
on T
he a
sses
smen
t mus
t foc
us o
n th
e fo
rese
eabl
e co
nseq
uenc
es o
f the
app
lican
trsquos re
mov
al to
the
coun
try
of d
estin
atio
n in
the
light
of t
he g
ener
al si
tuat
ion
ther
e an
d of
his
or h
er p
erso
nal c
ircum
stan
ces
(see
for
exa
mpl
e S
alah
She
ekh
v th
e N
ethe
rland
s n
o 1
948
04sect136
11 Janu
ary20
07and
Vilv
araj
ah
and
Oth
ers v
the
Uni
ted
King
domcite
dab
ovesectsect10
7an
d10
8)rdquorsquo
Para
93
lsquo93
Ow
ing
to th
e sp
ecia
l situ
atio
n in
whi
ch a
sylu
m-s
eeke
rs o
ften
find
them
selv
es i
t is f
requ
ently
ne
cess
ary
to g
ive
them
the
bene
fit o
f the
dou
bt w
hen
asse
ssin
g th
e cr
edib
ility
of t
heir
stat
emen
ts
and
the
docu
men
ts su
bmitt
ed in
supp
ort t
here
of Y
et w
hen
info
rmat
ion
is pr
esen
ted
whi
ch g
ives
st
rong
reas
ons t
o qu
estio
n th
e ve
raci
ty o
f an
asyl
um-s
eeke
rrsquos su
bmiss
ions
the
indi
vidu
al m
ust p
rovi
de
a sa
tisfa
ctor
y ex
plan
atio
n fo
r the
alle
ged
inac
cura
cies
in th
ose
subm
issio
ns (s
ee F
G v
Sw
eden
cite
d ab
ovesect113
Col
lins a
nd A
kazie
bie
v S
wed
en (d
ec)
no
239
440
58 M
arch200
7and
SH
H v
the
U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m n
o 6
0367
10sect7129 Janu
ary20
13)Even
ifth
eap
plican
trsquosaccou
ntofsom
ede
tails
may
app
ear s
omew
hat i
mpl
ausib
le t
he C
ourt
has
con
sider
ed th
at th
is do
es n
ot n
eces
saril
y de
trac
t fro
m
the
over
all g
ener
al c
redi
bilit
y of
the
appl
ican
trsquos c
laim
(see
Sai
dcite
dab
ovesect53and
mut
atis
mut
andi
s
N v
Fin
land
no
388
850
2sectsect15
4-15
526 July200
5)rsquo
Labi
ta c
Italy
[GC]
no
26772956 April
2000
MA
v Cy
prus
no
418721023 July
2013
MSS
v B
elgi
um
and
Gree
ce [
GC]
no 306960921 Janu
ary
2011
Muumls
lim v
Turk
ey
no 535669926 Ap
ril
2005
N v
Finl
and
no
388850226 July
2005
NA v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no
259040717 July
2008
Niza
mov
and
Oth
ers
v Ru
ssia
nos
226
361
3
2403
413
243
341
3
24328137 M
ay2014
RC v
Swed
en
no 41827079 M
arch
2010
RJ v
Fran
ce
no 1046611
19 Sep
tembe
r2013
108 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
SH v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no
199560615 June
20
10
SHH
v Un
ited
King
dom
no
603671029 Janu
ary
2013
Saad
i v It
aly
[GC]
no
3720106
28 Fe
bruary2008
Said
v th
e Ne
ther
land
s no
2345025 Ju
ly2005
Sala
h Sh
eekh
v
the
Net
herla
nds
no
19480411 Janu
ary
2007
Sufi
and
Elm
i v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m n
os 8
319
07
and114490728 June
20
11
TI v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(dec)no
4384498
7 March2000
Venk
adaj
alas
arm
a v
the
Neth
erla
nds
no 5851000
17 Fe
bruary2004
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 109
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
[GC
VM a
nd O
ther
s v
Belg
ium
no 601
2511
171
120
16
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R - i
nhum
an o
r deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent ndash
subj
ecte
d to
livi
ng c
ondi
tions
that
resu
lted
in
daug
hter
rsquos de
ath
Para
41
lsquo41
Acc
ordi
ngly
the
case
shou
ld b
e st
ruck
out
of t
he li
strsquo
Diss
entin
g op
inio
n of
Judg
e Ra
nzon
i jo
ined
by
judg
es L
oacutepez
Gue
rra
Sic
ilian
os a
nd L
emm
ens
Par
a
5 lsquoF
irstly
the
Gra
nd C
ham
ber s
houl
d ha
ve ta
ken
adva
ntag
e of
the
oppo
rtun
ity p
rovi
ded
by th
e pr
esen
t ca
se to
def
ine
or a
djus
t the
con
cept
of ldquo
vuln
erab
ility
rdquo In
its c
ase-
law
the
Cour
t has
had
rega
rd to
th
e vu
lner
abili
ty o
f the
app
lican
ts b
oth
in a
sses
sing
whe
ther
the
thre
shol
d of
seve
rity
just
ifyin
g th
e ap
plic
atio
n of
Art
icle
3 h
ad b
een
atta
ined
a g
reat
er d
egre
e of
vul
nera
bilit
y ju
stify
ing
a lo
wer
thre
shol
d of
tole
ranc
e a
nd in
det
erm
inin
g th
e sc
ope
of th
e po
sitiv
e ob
ligat
ions
on
the
Stat
e e
xtre
me
vuln
erab
ility
re
quiri
ng a
gre
ater
dut
y of
pro
tect
ion
(see
MS
S v
Bel
gium
and
Gre
ece
[GC]
no
306
960
9sect251
ECH
R20
11 a
nd Ta
rakh
el v
Sw
itzer
land
[GC]
no
292
171
2sect119
ECH
R20
14(e
xtracts))rsquo
Ali v
Switz
erla
nd
no 6919978531060
5 Au
gust
199
8
Dial
lo v
Cze
ch R
epub
lic
no 204930723 June
20
11
Ibra
him
Hay
d v
the
Neth
erla
nds (
dec)
no
3088010
29 Novem
ber2
011
K an
d T
v Fi
nlan
d [G
C]
no 257029412 July
2001
Kadz
oev v
Bul
garia
(dec)no
5643707
1 Octob
er2013
MH
and
Oth
ers v
Cyp
rus
(dec)no
4174410
14 Janu
ary2014
MIs
v C
ypru
s (de
c)
no 4180510
10 Fe
bruary2015
Ram
zy v
the
Neth
erla
nds (
strik
ing
out)no 2542405
20 Ju
ly2010
Shar
ifi a
nd O
ther
s v
Italy
and
Gre
ece
no
1664309
21 Octob
er2014
110 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
Elm
i and
Abu
bake
r v
Mal
ta
nos 2
5794
13
and
2815
113
221
120
16
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
Proh
ibiti
on o
f tor
ture
- de
grad
ing
trea
tmen
t ndash d
eten
tion
ndash as
ylum
seek
ing
child
ren
ndash be
st
inte
rest
s of t
he ch
ild -
Artic
le 5
ECH
R ndash
revi
ew o
f law
fuln
ess o
f det
entio
n ndash
arbi
trar
y de
tent
ion
due
to se
vere
de
lays
Para
s 1
11-1
15
lsquo111
The
se co
ncer
ns a
ssum
e a
new
dim
ensio
n in
vie
w o
f the
fact
that
the
appl
icant
s wer
e m
inor
s at t
he
time
of th
eir d
eten
tion
(as c
onfir
med
by
the
dom
estic
pro
cedu
res)
Whi
le it
is tr
ue th
at th
e ap
plica
nts w
ere
not y
oung
child
ren
they
still
fell
with
in th
e in
tern
atio
nal d
efin
ition
of m
inor
s in
resp
ect o
f whi
ch d
eten
tion
shou
ld b
e a
last
reso
rt a
nd w
hich
shou
ld b
e lim
ited
to th
e sh
orte
st ti
me
poss
ible
As m
entio
ned
abov
e
unde
r the
Cou
rtrsquos
case
-law
rece
ptio
n co
nditi
ons f
or ch
ildre
n se
ekin
g as
ylum
mus
t be
adap
ted
to th
eir a
ge
How
ever
no
mea
sure
s wer
e ta
ken
to e
nsur
e th
at th
e ap
plica
nts a
s min
ors r
ecei
ved
prop
er co
unse
lling
an
d ed
ucat
iona
l ass
istan
ce fr
om q
ualif
ied
pers
onne
l spe
cially
man
date
d fo
r tha
t pur
pose
(see
Mub
ilanz
ila
May
eka
and
Kani
ki M
itung
a citedab
ovesect50)N
orwereanyen
tertainm
entfacilitie
sprovide
dforp
ersons
of th
eir a
ge F
urth
erm
ore
the
Cour
t can
not i
gnor
e th
e ap
plica
ntsrsquo
subm
issio
ns to
the
effe
ct th
at th
ere
was
a te
nse
and
viol
ent a
tmos
pher
e a
s also
doc
umen
ted
by re
port
s (se
e pa
ragr
aph
86 a
bove
) Th
e la
ck o
f an
y su
ppor
t mec
hani
sm fo
r the
app
lican
ts a
s min
ors
as w
ell a
s the
lack
of i
nfor
mat
ion
conc
erni
ng th
eir
situa
tion
mus
t hav
e ex
acer
bate
d th
eir f
ears
lsquo112
The
Cou
rt re
itera
tes t
hat a
Sta
tersquos
oblig
atio
ns co
ncer
ning
the
prot
ectio
n of
mig
rant
min
ors m
ay b
e di
ffere
nt d
epen
ding
on
whe
ther
they
are
acc
ompa
nied
or n
ot (s
ee R
ahim
i v G
reec
e n
o 8
687
08sect63
5 Ap
ril201
1)H
oweverthe
Cou
rthasfo
undviolationsinbotham
bitsItfou
ndaviolatio
nofArticle3in
Popo
v(cite
dab
ovesect103
)con
cerningaccompa
nied
minorsinview
ofthe
childrenrsquosy
oungage(fivemon
ths
and
thre
e ye
ars)
the
leng
th o
f the
ir de
tent
ion
(ove
r a p
erio
d of
fifte
en d
ays)
and
the
cond
ition
s of t
heir
conf
inem
ent i
n a
dete
ntio
n ce
ntre
It a
lso fo
und
a vi
olat
ion
of A
rticl
e 3
in th
e M
uskh
adzh
iyev
a an
d O
ther
s (cite
dab
ovesect63)co
ncerningfo
uryou
ngch
ildrenwho
werehe
ldaccom
panied
bytheirm
othe
rforo
ne
mon
th p
endi
ng th
eir r
emov
al ndash
the
Cour
t hav
ing
take
n in
to co
nsid
erat
ion
thei
r you
ng a
ge (s
even
mon
ths
to se
ven
year
s) t
he d
urat
ion
of th
e de
tent
ion
and
thei
r hea
lth st
atus
(see
also
Kan
agar
atna
m v
Bel
gium
no
152
970
9sect6913 De
cembe
r201
1)The
Cou
rthasalso
previou
slyfo
und
in R
ahim
i (cit
ed a
bove
sectsect85-86
)inrespecto
fanun
accompa
nied
minor(a
gedfifteen
)insuchfacilitiesthatthe
cond
ition
sof
his d
eten
tion
wer
e so
poo
r tha
t the
y un
derm
ined
the
very
ess
ence
of h
uman
dig
nity
and
that
they
coul
d be
rega
rded
in th
emse
lves
with
out t
akin
g in
to co
nsid
erat
ion
the
leng
th o
f the
det
entio
n (a
few
day
s) a
s de
grad
ing
trea
tmen
t in
brea
ch o
f Art
icle
3 of
the
Conv
entio
n (s
ee a
lso M
ubila
nzila
May
eka
and
Kani
ki
Mitu
ngacitedab
ovesectsect50
-59inco
nnectio
nwith
afive-year-o
lduna
ccom
panied
minor)
Aden
Ahm
ed v
Mal
ta
no 553
521223 July
2013
Mah
amed
Jam
a v
Mal
tan
o 10
29013
26
Novem
ber2
015
Mox
amed
Ism
aaci
il an
d Ab
dira
hman
War
sam
e v
Mal
ta n
os 5
2160
13
and
5216
513
12
Janu
ary20
16
Mub
ilanz
ila
May
eka
and
Kani
ki
Mitu
nga
v Be
lgiu
m
no 1
3178
03
12
Octob
er200
6
Siza
rev
v U
krai
ne
no 171
1604
17 Ja
nuary20
13
Selc
uk a
nd A
kser
v
Turk
ey n
os 2
3184
94
and23
18594
24 Ap
ril
1998
Pret
ty v
Uni
ted
King
domn
o 23
4602
29 April20
02
Doug
oz v
Gre
ece
no
409
07986 M
arch
2001
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 111
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo113
The
Cou
rt o
bser
ves t
hat i
n th
e ap
plic
ants
rsquo cas
e th
e af
orem
entio
ned
cond
ition
s per
siste
d fo
r a p
erio
d of
aro
und
eigh
t mon
ths
dur
ing
whi
ch n
o sp
ecifi
c ar
rang
emen
ts w
ere
mad
e fo
r the
app
lican
ts a
s mig
rant
s aw
aitin
g th
e ou
tcom
e of
thei
r age
-ass
essm
ent p
roce
dure
(who
se st
atus
as m
inor
s was
late
r con
firm
ed)
The
Cour
t rei
tera
tes t
hat t
he a
pplic
ants
as a
sylu
m-s
eeke
rs w
ere
part
icul
arly
vul
nera
ble
beca
use
of
ever
ythi
ng th
ey h
ad b
een
thro
ugh
durin
g th
eir m
igra
tion
and
the
trau
mat
ic e
xper
ienc
es th
ey w
ere
likel
y to
hav
e en
dure
d pr
evio
usly
(see
MS
Scitedab
ovesect232
)Moreo
verinth
epresen
tcasetheap
plican
ts
who
wer
e six
teen
and
seve
ntee
n ye
ars o
f age
resp
ectiv
ely
wer
e ev
en m
ore
vuln
erab
le th
an a
ny o
ther
ad
ult a
sylu
m se
eker
det
aine
d at
the
time
beca
use
of th
eir a
ge (s
ee a
con
trar
io M
aham
ed Ja
ma
cite
d ab
ovesect100
)
lsquo114
It f
ollo
ws
in th
e pr
esen
t cas
e th
at si
nce
the
appl
ican
ts w
ere
min
ors w
ho w
ere
deta
ined
for a
per
iod
of a
roun
d ei
ght m
onth
s th
e cu
mul
ativ
e ef
fect
of t
he c
ondi
tions
com
plai
ned
of a
mou
nted
to d
egra
ding
tr
eatm
ent w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n
lsquo115
The
re h
as a
ccor
ding
ly b
een
a vi
olat
ion
of A
rtic
le 3
of t
he C
onve
ntio
nrsquo
SD v
Gre
ece
no
535410711 June
20
09
AA v
Gre
ece
no
121860822 July
2010
Riad
and
Idia
b v B
elgi
um n
os 2
9787
03
and
2981
003
24 Janu
ary2008
Alve
r v E
ston
ia
no 6481201
8 No
vembe
r2005
Kara
levi
cius v
Lith
uani
a
no 53254997 April
2005
Yara
shon
en v
Turk
ey n
o
727101124 June
2014
Anan
yev a
nd O
ther
s v
Russ
ia n
os 4
2525
07
and
6080
008
10 Janu
ary2012
MSS
v B
elgi
um
and
Gree
ce [
GC]
no 306960921 Janu
ary
2011
Mub
ilanz
ila M
ayek
a an
d Ka
niki
Mitu
nga
v Be
lgiu
m no
1317
803
12 Octob
er2006
112 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Popo
v v Fr
ance
no
s 394
720
7 an
d 394740719 Janu
ary
2012
Tara
khel
v Sw
itzer
land
[G
C] no
2921
712
4 No
vembe
r2014
Suso
Mus
a v
Mal
ta
no 423371223 July
2013
Rahi
mi v
Gre
ece
no
8687085 April
2011
Kana
gara
tnam
v
Belg
ium
no 1529709
13 Decem
ber2
011
Step
hens
v M
alta
(no
1)
no 119560721 Ap
ril
2009
Loul
ed M
asso
ud
v M
altano 2434008
27 Ju
ly2010
Saad
i v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
[GC]no 1322903
29 Janu
ary2008
Blok
hin
v Ru
ssia
[GC]
no
471520623 March
2016
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 113
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
[GC]
Papo
shvi
li v
Belg
ium
no 417
3810
131
220
16
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R - r
isk o
f tor
ture
or t
o in
hum
an o
r deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent -
Art
icle
8 ndash
righ
t to
resp
ect f
or
fam
ily li
fe ndash
rem
oval
to G
eorg
ia ndash
hea
lth o
f app
lican
t
Para
178
lsquo178
In
the
case
of N
v t
he U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m w
hich
con
cern
ed th
e re
mov
al o
f a U
gand
an n
atio
nal w
ho
was
suffe
ring
from
Aid
s to
her c
ount
ry o
f orig
in t
he C
ourt
in
exam
inin
g w
heth
er th
e ci
rcum
stan
ces o
f th
e ca
se a
ttai
ned
the
leve
l of s
ever
ity re
quire
d by
Art
icle
3 o
f the
Con
vent
ion
obs
erve
d th
at n
eith
er th
e de
cisio
n to
rem
ove
an a
lien
who
was
suffe
ring
from
a se
rious
illn
ess t
o a
coun
try
whe
re th
e fa
cilit
ies f
or
the
trea
tmen
t of t
hat i
llnes
s wer
e in
ferio
r to
thos
e av
aila
ble
in th
e Co
ntra
ctin
g St
ate
nor
the
fact
that
the
indi
vidu
alrsquos
circ
umst
ance
s in
clud
ing
his o
r her
life
exp
ecta
ncy
wou
ld b
e sig
nific
antly
redu
ced
con
stitu
ted
in th
emse
lves
ldquoexc
eptio
nalrdquo
circ
umst
ance
s suf
ficie
nt to
giv
e ris
e to
a b
reac
h of
Art
icle
3 (s
ee N
v t
he
Uni
ted
King
dom
) In
the
Cour
trsquos v
iew
it w
as im
port
ant t
o av
oid
upse
ttin
g th
e fa
ir ba
lanc
e in
here
nt in
th
e w
hole
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n be
twee
n th
e de
man
ds o
f the
gen
eral
inte
rest
of t
he c
omm
unity
and
the
requ
irem
ents
of t
he p
rote
ctio
n of
the
indi
vidu
alrsquos
fund
amen
tal r
ight
s A
find
ing
to th
e co
ntra
ry w
ould
pl
ace
too
grea
t a b
urde
n on
Sta
tes b
y ob
ligin
g th
em to
alle
viat
e th
e di
spar
ities
bet
wee
n th
eir h
ealth
-ca
re sy
stem
and
the
leve
l of t
reat
men
t ava
ilabl
e in
the
third
cou
ntry
con
cern
ed th
roug
h th
e pr
ovisi
on o
f fr
ee a
nd u
nlim
ited
heal
th c
are
to a
ll al
iens
with
out a
righ
t to
stay
with
in th
eir j
urisd
ictio
n R
athe
r re
gard
sh
ould
be
had
to th
e fa
ct th
at th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
con
ditio
n w
as n
ot c
ritic
al a
nd w
as st
able
as a
resu
lt of
the
antir
etro
vira
l tre
atm
ent s
he h
ad re
ceiv
ed in
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
tha
t she
was
fit t
o tr
avel
and
that
her
co
nditi
on w
as n
ot e
xpec
ted
to d
eter
iora
te a
s lon
g as
she
cont
inue
d to
take
the
trea
tmen
t she
nee
ded
Th
e Co
urt a
lso d
eem
ed it
nec
essa
ry to
take
acc
ount
of t
he fa
ct th
at th
e ra
pidi
ty o
f the
det
erio
ratio
n w
hich
th
e ap
plic
ant w
ould
suffe
r in
the
rece
ivin
g co
untr
y an
d th
e ex
tent
to w
hich
she
wou
ld b
e ab
le to
obt
ain
acce
ss to
med
ical
trea
tmen
t su
ppor
t and
car
e th
ere
incl
udin
g he
lp fr
om re
lativ
es n
eces
saril
y in
volv
ed
a ce
rtai
n de
gree
of s
pecu
latio
n p
artic
ular
ly in
vie
w o
f the
con
stan
tly e
volv
ing
situa
tion
with
rega
rd to
the
treatm
ento
fAidsw
orldwide(ib
idsect50
)Th
eCo
urtc
onclud
edth
atth
eim
plem
entatio
nofth
ede
cisio
nto
rem
ove
the
appl
ican
t wou
ld n
ot g
ive
rise
to a
vio
latio
n of
Art
icle
3 o
f the
Con
vent
ion
Nev
erth
eles
s it
sp
ecifi
ed th
at i
n ad
ditio
n to
situ
atio
ns o
f the
kin
d ad
dres
sed
in D
v t
he U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m in
whi
ch d
eath
w
as im
min
ent
ther
e m
ight
be
othe
r ver
y ex
cept
iona
l cas
es w
here
the
hum
anita
rian
cons
ider
atio
ns
wei
ghin
g ag
ains
t rem
oval
wer
e eq
ually
com
pelli
ng (s
ee D
v t
he U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m)
An e
xam
inat
ion
of th
e ca
se-la
w su
bseq
uent
to N
v t
he U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m h
as n
ot re
veal
ed a
ny su
ch e
xam
ples
rsquo
AS v
Sw
itzer
land
no
393
501330 June
20
15
Aire
y v
Irela
nd
no 628
973
9 Octob
er
1979
Asw
at v
Uni
ted
King
domn
o 17
29912
16
April20
13
Bouy
id v
Bel
gium
[GC]n
o 23
38009
28
Sep
tembe
r201
5
D v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no
302
40962 M
ay
1997
EO v
Ital
y (d
ec)
no 347
241010 May
2012
El-M
asri
v th
e fo
rmer
Yu
gosla
v Re
publ
ic
of M
aced
onia
[GC]n
o 39
63009
13
Decem
ber2
012
FG v
Sw
eden
[GC]
no
436
111123 March
2016
114 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
s 1
83-1
93
lsquo183
The
Cou
rt c
onsid
ers t
hat t
he ldquoo
ther
ver
y ex
cept
iona
l cas
esrdquo
with
in th
e m
eani
ng o
f the
judg
men
t in
N v
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
whi
ch m
ay ra
ise a
n iss
ue u
nder
Art
icle
3 sh
ould
be
unde
rsto
od to
refe
r to
situa
tions
invo
lvin
g th
e re
mov
al o
f a se
rious
ly il
l per
son
in w
hich
subs
tant
ial g
roun
ds h
ave
been
show
n fo
r bel
ievi
ng th
at h
e or
she
alth
ough
not
at i
mm
inen
t risk
of d
ying
wou
ld fa
ce a
real
risk
on
acco
unt o
f th
e ab
senc
e of
app
ropr
iate
trea
tmen
t in
the
rece
ivin
g co
untr
y or
the
lack
of a
cces
s to
such
trea
tmen
t of
bei
ng e
xpos
ed to
a se
rious
rap
id a
nd ir
reve
rsib
le d
eclin
e in
his
or h
er st
ate
of h
ealth
resu
lting
in
inte
nse
suffe
ring
or to
a si
gnifi
cant
redu
ctio
n in
life
exp
ecta
ncy
The
Cou
rt p
oint
s out
that
thes
e sit
uatio
ns
corr
espo
nd to
a h
igh
thre
shol
d fo
r the
app
licat
ion
of A
rtic
le 3
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n in
cas
es c
once
rnin
g th
e re
mov
al o
f alie
ns su
fferin
g fr
om se
rious
illn
ess
lsquo184
As
to w
heth
er th
e ab
ove
cond
ition
s are
satis
fied
in a
giv
en si
tuat
ion
the
Cour
t obs
erve
s tha
t in
case
s inv
olvi
ng th
e ex
pulsi
on o
f alie
ns t
he C
ourt
doe
s not
itse
lf ex
amin
e th
e ap
plic
atio
ns fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pr
otec
tion
or v
erify
how
Sta
tes c
ontr
ol th
e en
try
resid
ence
and
exp
ulsio
n of
alie
ns B
y vi
rtue
of A
rtic
le 1
of
the
Conv
entio
n th
e pr
imar
y re
spon
sibili
ty fo
r im
plem
entin
g an
d en
forc
ing
the
guar
ante
ed ri
ghts
and
fr
eedo
ms i
s lai
d on
the
natio
nal a
utho
ritie
s w
ho a
re th
us re
quire
d to
exa
min
e th
e ap
plic
ants
rsquo fea
rs a
nd
to a
sses
s the
risk
s the
y w
ould
face
if re
mov
ed to
the
rece
ivin
g co
untr
y fr
om th
e st
andp
oint
of A
rtic
le 3
Th
e m
achi
nery
of c
ompl
aint
to th
e Co
urt i
s sub
sidia
ry to
nat
iona
l sys
tem
s saf
egua
rdin
g hu
man
righ
ts T
his
subsidiarycha
racterisarticulated
inArticle13an
dArtic
le35sect1ofth
eCo
nven
tion(see
MS
S v
Bel
gium
an
d Gr
eece
cite
dab
ovesectsect28
6-87
and
FG
v S
wed
en)
lsquo185
Ac
cord
ingl
y in
cas
es o
f thi
s kin
d th
e au
thor
ities
rsquo obl
igat
ion
unde
r Art
icle
3 to
pro
tect
the
inte
grity
of
the
pers
ons c
once
rned
is fu
lfille
d pr
imar
ily th
roug
h ap
prop
riate
pro
cedu
res a
llow
ing
such
exa
min
atio
n to
be
carr
ied
out (
see
mut
atis
mut
andi
s E
l-Mas
ri v
the
form
er Y
ugos
lav
Repu
blic
of M
aced
onia
[GC]
no
396
300
9sect182
ECH
R20
12 T
arak
hel
and
FG v
Sw
eden
)
lsquo186
In
the
cont
ext o
f the
se p
roce
dure
s it
is fo
r the
app
lican
ts to
add
uce
evid
ence
cap
able
of
dem
onst
ratin
g th
at th
ere
are
subs
tant
ial g
roun
ds fo
r bel
ievi
ng th
at i
f the
mea
sure
com
plai
ned
of w
ere
to b
e im
plem
ente
d th
ey w
ould
be
expo
sed
to a
real
risk
of b
eing
subj
ecte
d to
trea
tmen
t con
trar
y to
Art
icle
3 (s
ee S
aadi
and
FG
v S
wed
en)
In th
is co
nnec
tion
it sh
ould
be
obse
rved
that
a c
erta
in
degr
ee o
f spe
cula
tion
is in
here
nt in
the
prev
entiv
e pu
rpos
e of
Art
icle
3 a
nd th
at it
is n
ot a
mat
ter o
f re
quiri
ng th
e pe
rson
s con
cern
ed to
pro
vide
cle
ar p
roof
of t
heir
clai
m th
at th
ey w
ould
be
expo
sed
to
pros
crib
ed tr
eatm
ent (
see
in p
artic
ular
Tra
belsi
v B
elgi
um n
o 1
401
0sect130
ECH
R20
14(e
xtracts))
Hirs
i Jam
aa a
nd
Oth
ers v
Ital
y [G
C]
no 277
6509
23 Feb
ruary20
12
Kara
goz v
Fra
nce
(dec)no
475
3199
15 Novem
ber2
011
Karn
er v
Aus
tria
no
400
169824 July
2003
Khac
hatr
yan
v Be
lgiu
m
(dec)no
725
9710
7 Ap
ril201
5
Koch
ieva
and
Oth
ers
v Sw
eden
(dec
) no
752
031230 Ap
ril
2013
MSS
v B
elgi
um
and
Gree
ce [
GC]
no 306
9609
21 Ja
nuary20
11
Mal
hous
v C
zech
Re
publ
ic (d
ec) [
GC]
no 330
719612 July
2001
Mam
atku
lov
and
Aska
rov
v Tu
rkey
[GC]
no
s 468
279
9 an
d 46
95199
4 Feb
ruary
2005
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 115
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo187
W
here
such
evi
denc
e is
addu
ced
it is
for t
he a
utho
ritie
s of t
he re
turn
ing
Stat
e in
the
cont
ext o
f do
mes
tic p
roce
dure
s to
disp
el a
ny d
oubt
s rai
sed
by it
(see
Saa
dicite
dab
ovesect129
and
FG
v S
wed
en
citedab
ovesect120
)Th
eriskallegedmustb
esubjectedtoclosesc
rutin
y(see
Saa
di cite
dab
ovesect128
Su
fi an
d El
mi v
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
nos
831
907
and
114
490
7sect214
28 June
201
1H
irsi J
amaa
and
O
ther
s a
nd Ta
rakh
el)
in th
e co
urse
of w
hich
the
auth
oriti
es in
the
retu
rnin
g St
ate
mus
t con
sider
the
fore
seea
ble
cons
eque
nces
of r
emov
al fo
r the
indi
vidu
al c
once
rned
in th
e re
ceiv
ing
Stat
e in
the
light
of
the
gene
ral s
ituat
ion
ther
e an
d th
e in
divi
dual
rsquos pe
rson
al c
ircum
stan
ces (
see
Vilv
araj
ah a
nd O
ther
s
El-M
asri
and
Tara
khel
) Th
e as
sess
men
t of t
he ri
sk a
s def
ined
abo
ve (s
ee p
arag
raph
s 183
-84)
mus
t th
eref
ore
take
into
con
sider
atio
n ge
nera
l sou
rces
such
as r
epor
ts o
f the
Wor
ld H
ealth
Org
anisa
tion
or o
f re
puta
ble
non-
gove
rnm
enta
l org
anisa
tions
and
the
med
ical
cer
tific
ates
con
cern
ing
the
pers
on in
que
stio
n
lsquo188
As
the
Cour
t has
obs
erve
d ab
ove
wha
t is i
n iss
ue h
ere
is th
e ne
gativ
e ob
ligat
ion
not t
o ex
pose
pe
rson
s to
a ris
k of
ill-t
reat
men
t pro
scrib
ed b
y Ar
ticle
3 I
t fol
low
s tha
t the
impa
ct o
f rem
oval
on
the
pers
on c
once
rned
mus
t be
asse
ssed
by
com
parin
g hi
s or h
er st
ate
of h
ealth
prio
r to
rem
oval
and
how
it
wou
ld e
volv
e af
ter t
rans
fer t
o th
e re
ceiv
ing
Stat
e
lsquo189
As
rega
rds t
he fa
ctor
s to
be ta
ken
into
con
sider
atio
n th
e au
thor
ities
in th
e re
turn
ing
Stat
e m
ust
verif
y on
a c
ase-
by-c
ase
basis
whe
ther
the
care
gen
eral
ly a
vaila
ble
in th
e re
ceiv
ing
Stat
e is
suffi
cien
t an
d ap
prop
riate
in p
ract
ice
for t
he tr
eatm
ent o
f the
app
lican
trsquos il
lnes
s so
as to
pre
vent
him
or h
er b
eing
ex
pose
d to
trea
tmen
t con
trar
y to
Art
icle
3 T
he b
ench
mar
k is
not t
he le
vel o
f car
e ex
istin
g in
the
retu
rnin
g St
ate
it is
not
a q
uest
ion
of a
scer
tain
ing
whe
ther
the
care
in th
e re
ceiv
ing
Stat
e w
ould
be
equi
vale
nt o
r in
ferio
r to
that
pro
vide
d by
the
heal
th-c
are
syst
em in
the
retu
rnin
g St
ate
Nor
is it
pos
sible
to d
eriv
e fr
om
Artic
le 3
a ri
ght t
o re
ceiv
e sp
ecifi
c tr
eatm
ent i
n th
e re
ceiv
ing
Stat
e w
hich
is n
ot a
vaila
ble
to th
e re
st o
f the
po
pula
tion
lsquo190
Th
e au
thor
ities
mus
t also
con
sider
the
exte
nt to
whi
ch th
e in
divi
dual
in q
uest
ion
will
act
ually
hav
e ac
cess
to th
is ca
re a
nd th
ese
faci
litie
s in
the
rece
ivin
g St
ate
The
Cou
rt o
bser
ves i
n th
at re
gard
that
it h
as
prev
ious
ly q
uest
ione
d th
e ac
cess
ibili
ty o
f car
e (s
ee A
swat
and
Tata
r) a
nd re
ferr
ed to
the
need
to c
onsid
er
the
cost
of m
edic
atio
n an
d tr
eatm
ent
the
exist
ence
of a
soci
al a
nd fa
mily
net
wor
k a
nd th
e di
stan
ce
to b
e tr
avel
led
in o
rder
to h
ave
acce
ss to
the
requ
ired
care
(see
Kar
agoz
v F
ranc
e (d
ec)
no
475
319
9
15 Novem
ber2
001N
v t
he U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m a
nd th
e re
fere
nces
cite
d th
erei
n a
nd E
O v
Ita
ly (d
ec))
Mas
lov
v Au
stria
[GC]
no
163
803
23 June
20
08
Mur
ray
v th
e N
ethe
rland
s [GC
] no
105
111026 Ap
ril
2016
N v
Uni
ted
King
dom
[GC]n
o 26
56505
27
May200
8
Pret
ty v
Uni
ted
King
domn
o 23
4602
29 April20
02
SHH
v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 603
6710
29 Ja
nuary20
13
Saad
i v It
aly
[GC]
no
372
0106
28 Feb
ruary20
08
Sufi
and
Elm
i v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m n
os 8
319
07
and11
44907
28 June
20
11
116 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo191
W
here
afte
r the
rele
vant
info
rmat
ion
has b
een
exam
ined
ser
ious
dou
bts p
ersis
t reg
ardi
ng th
e im
pact
of r
emov
al o
n th
e pe
rson
s con
cern
ed ndash
on
acco
unt o
f the
gen
eral
situ
atio
n in
the
rece
ivin
g co
untr
y an
dor
thei
r ind
ivid
ual s
ituat
ion
ndash th
e re
turn
ing
Stat
e m
ust o
btai
n in
divi
dual
and
suffi
cien
t ass
uran
ces
from
the
rece
ivin
g St
ate
as a
pre
cond
ition
for r
emov
al t
hat a
ppro
pria
te tr
eatm
ent w
ill b
e av
aila
ble
and
acce
ssib
le to
the
pers
ons c
once
rned
so th
at th
ey d
o no
t fin
d th
emse
lves
in a
situ
atio
n co
ntra
ry to
Art
icle
3
(on
the
subj
ect o
f ind
ivid
ual a
ssur
ance
s se
e Ta
rakh
el)
lsquo192
Th
e Co
urt e
mph
asise
s tha
t in
cas
es c
once
rnin
g th
e re
mov
al o
f ser
ious
ly il
l per
sons
the
eve
nt w
hich
tr
igge
rs th
e in
hum
an a
nd d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t an
d w
hich
eng
ages
the
resp
onsib
ility
of t
he re
turn
ing
Stat
e un
der A
rtic
le 3
is n
ot th
e la
ck o
f med
ical
infr
astr
uctu
re in
the
rece
ivin
g St
ate
Lik
ewise
the
issu
e is
not o
ne o
f any
obl
igat
ion
for t
he re
turn
ing
Stat
e to
alle
viat
e th
e di
spar
ities
bet
wee
n its
hea
lth-c
are
syst
em
and
the
leve
l of t
reat
men
t exi
stin
g in
the
rece
ivin
g St
ate
thro
ugh
the
prov
ision
of f
ree
and
unlim
ited
heal
th c
are
to a
ll al
iens
with
out a
righ
t to
stay
with
in it
s jur
isdic
tion
The
resp
onsib
ility
that
is e
ngag
ed
unde
r the
Con
vent
ion
in c
ases
of t
his t
ype
is th
at o
f the
retu
rnin
g St
ate
on
acco
unt o
f an
act ndash
in th
is in
stan
ce e
xpul
sion
ndash w
hich
wou
ld re
sult
in a
n in
divi
dual
bei
ng e
xpos
ed to
a ri
sk o
f tre
atm
ent p
rohi
bite
d by
Art
icle
3
lsquo193
La
stly
the
fact
that
the
third
cou
ntry
con
cern
ed is
a C
ontr
actin
g Pa
rty
to th
e Co
nven
tion
is no
t de
cisiv
e W
hile
the
Cour
t agr
ees w
ith th
e Go
vern
men
t tha
t the
pos
sibili
ty fo
r the
app
lican
t to
initi
ate
proc
eedi
ngs o
n hi
s ret
urn
to G
eorg
ia w
as i
n pr
inci
ple
the
mos
t nat
ural
rem
edy
unde
r the
Con
vent
ion
syst
em i
t obs
erve
s tha
t the
aut
horit
ies i
n th
e re
turn
ing
Stat
e ar
e no
t exe
mpt
ed o
n th
at a
ccou
nt fr
om th
eir
duty
of p
reve
ntio
n un
der A
rtic
le 3
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n (s
ee a
mon
g ot
her a
utho
ritie
s M
SS
v B
elgi
um a
nd
Gree
ce a
nd Ta
rakh
el)rsquo
Tara
khel
v S
witz
erla
nd
[GC]
no
2921
712
4 Novem
ber2
014
Tata
r v S
witz
erla
nd
no 656
921214 Ap
ril
2015
Trab
elsi
v Be
lgiu
m
no 140
10
4 Septem
ber2
014
VS a
nd O
ther
s v F
ranc
e (dec)no
352
2611
25 Novem
ber2
014
Vilv
araj
ah a
nd O
ther
s v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no
s 131
638
7
1316
487
131
658
7
1344
787
134
488
7
30 Octob
er199
1
Yoh-
Ekal
e M
wan
je
v Be
lgiu
m
no 104
8610
20 Decem
ber2
011
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 117
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
SF a
nd O
ther
s v B
ulga
ria
no 813
816
071
220
17
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
inhu
man
or d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t ndash d
eten
tion
ndash ch
ild sp
ecifi
c co
nsid
erat
ions
ndash e
ffect
ive
rem
edy
Para
s 8
4-93
lsquo84
In th
is ca
se t
he p
erio
d un
der c
onsid
erat
ion
was
acc
ordi
ng to
the
Gove
rnm
entrsquos
cal
cula
tions
ab
out t
hirt
y-tw
o ho
urs
Acc
ordi
ng to
the
appl
ican
tsrsquo c
alcu
latio
ns i
t was
abo
ut fo
rty-
one
hour
s (se
e pa
ragr
aphs
11
and
29 a
bove
) W
hich
ever
of t
he tw
o ve
rsio
ns is
take
n as
cor
rect
it i
s cle
ar th
at th
is am
ount
of t
ime
was
con
sider
ably
shor
ter t
han
the
perio
ds a
t iss
ue in
the
case
s men
tione
d in
the
prev
ious
pa
ragr
aphs
How
ever
the
con
ditio
ns in
the
bord
er p
olic
ersquos d
eten
tion
faci
lity
in V
idin
as d
escr
ibed
by
the
appl
ican
ts (w
ithou
t bei
ng c
ontr
adic
ted
by th
e Go
vern
men
t) a
nd a
s rev
eale
d by
the
vide
o su
bmitt
ed b
y th
em w
ere
cons
ider
ably
wor
se th
an th
ose
in a
ll th
ose
case
s T
he c
ell i
n w
hich
the
appl
ican
ts w
ere
kept
th
ough
rela
tivel
y w
ell v
entil
ated
and
lit
was
ext
rem
ely
run-
dow
n w
ith p
aint
pee
ling
off t
he w
alls
and
ceili
ng d
irty
and
wor
n ou
t bun
k be
ds m
attr
esse
s and
bed
line
n a
nd li
tter
and
dam
p ca
rdbo
ard
on th
e flo
or (s
ee p
arag
raph
15
abov
e) I
t can
har
dly
be sa
id th
at th
ose
wer
e su
itabl
e co
nditi
ons i
n w
hich
to k
eep
a six
teen
-yea
r old
an
elev
en-y
ear o
ld a
nd e
spec
ially
a o
ne-a
nd-a
-hal
f-yea
r old
eve
n fo
r suc
h a
shor
t pe
riod
of ti
me
lsquo85
To
this
shou
ld b
e ad
ded
the
limite
d po
ssib
ilitie
s for
acc
essin
g th
e to
ilet
whi
ch ndash
as a
sser
ted
by th
e ap
plic
ants
and
as r
evea
led
by th
e vi
deo
whi
ch th
ey su
bmitt
ed (s
ee p
arag
raph
s 15
20
24a
nd 2
7 ab
ove)
ndash
forc
ed th
em to
urin
ate
onto
the
floor
of t
he c
ell i
n w
hich
they
wer
e ke
pt S
ince
the
Gove
rnm
ent d
id n
ot
disp
ute
that
ass
ertio
n or
subm
it an
y ev
iden
ce to
disp
rove
it i
t mus
t be
rega
rded
as p
rove
n
lsquo86
The
Cou
rt h
as m
any
times
hel
d in
rela
tion
to p
rison
s and
pre
-tria
l det
entio
n fa
cilit
ies
that
subj
ectin
g a
deta
inee
to th
e hu
mili
atio
n of
hav
ing
to re
lieve
him
self
or h
erse
lf in
a b
ucke
t in
the
pres
ence
of o
ther
in
mat
es c
an h
ave
no ju
stifi
catio
n e
xcep
t in
spec
ific
situa
tions
whe
re a
llow
ing
visit
s to
the
sani
tary
fa
cilit
ies w
ould
pos
e a
conc
rete
and
serio
us sa
fety
risk
(see
the
case
s cite
d in
Har
akch
iev
and
Tolu
mov
v
Bulg
aria
nos
150
181
1 an
d 61
199
12sect211
ECH
R20
14(e
xtracts))Tha
tmustb
eseen
ase
quallyifnot
mor
e a
pplic
able
to d
etai
ned
min
or m
igra
nts
AB a
nd O
ther
s v
Fran
cen
o 11
59312
12
July201
6
AF v
Gre
ece
no
537
091113 June
20
13
AM a
nd O
ther
s v
Fran
cen
o 24
58712
12
July201
6
AS v
Sw
itzer
land
no
393
501330 June
20
15
Abdi
Mah
amud
v
Mal
tan
o 56
79613
3 May201
6
Abdu
llahi
Elm
i and
Aw
eys A
buba
kar
v M
alta
nos
257
941
3 an
d 28
151
13
22 Novem
ber2
016
Al N
ashi
ri v
Pola
nd
no 287
611124 July
2014
118 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo87
The
fina
l ele
men
t to
be ta
ken
into
acc
ount
is th
e au
thor
ities
rsquo alle
ged
failu
re to
pro
vide
the
appl
ican
ts
with
food
and
drin
k fo
r mor
e th
an tw
enty
-four
hou
rs a
fter t
akin
g th
em in
to c
usto
dy (s
ee p
arag
raph
s 20
25
and
26
abov
e a
nd se
e a
lso a
s reg
ards
the
adeq
uate
pro
visio
n of
food
to p
eopl
e in
det
entio
n Kad
iķis
v L
atvi
a (n
o 2
) no
623
930
0sect554 M
ay200
6S
tepu
leac
v M
oldo
va n
o 8
207
06sect556 Novem
ber
2007
and
Kor
neyk
ova
and
Korn
eyko
v v
Ukr
aine
no
566
601
2sect141
24 March201
6)The
app
lican
tsrsquo
alle
gatio
ns in
that
resp
ect m
ust l
ikew
ise b
e se
en a
s pro
ven
giv
en th
at th
e Go
vern
men
t onl
y st
ated
th
at th
ey h
ad b
een
prov
ided
with
qua
ntiti
es o
f foo
d am
ount
ing
to th
e pr
escr
ibed
dai
ly ra
tions
with
out
com
men
ting
on th
e sp
ecifi
c al
lega
tions
abo
ut th
e se
rious
del
ay in
the
prov
ision
of f
ood
and
the
man
ner i
n w
hich
it h
ad in
fact
bee
n pr
ovid
ed (s
ee p
arag
raph
26
abov
e)
lsquo88
Nor
did
the
Gove
rnm
ent d
isput
e th
e al
lega
tion
that
the
seco
nd a
pplic
ant h
ad o
nly
been
giv
en a
cces
s to
the
baby
bot
tle a
nd th
e m
ilk o
f the
todd
ler (
the
fifth
app
lican
t) a
bout
nin
etee
n ho
urs a
fter t
hey
had
been
take
n in
to c
usto
dy (s
ee p
arag
raph
23
abov
e) T
he sm
all s
houl
der b
ag w
hich
can
be
seen
in th
e vi
deo
subm
itted
by
the
appl
ican
ts (s
ee p
arag
raph
15
abov
e) d
oes n
ot a
ppea
r to
cont
ain
such
item
s In
any
ev
ent
a fa
cilit
y in
whi
ch a
one
-and
-a-h
alf-y
ear-o
ld c
hild
is k
ept i
n cu
stod
y e
ven
for a
brie
f per
iod
of ti
me
m
ust b
e su
itabl
y eq
uipp
ed fo
r tha
t pur
pose
whi
ch d
oes n
ot a
ppea
r to
have
bee
n th
e ca
se w
ith th
e bo
rder
po
licersquo
s det
entio
n fa
cilit
y in
Vid
in
lsquo89
The
com
bina
tion
of th
e ab
ove-
men
tione
d fa
ctor
s mus
t hav
e af
fect
ed c
onsid
erab
ly th
e th
ird f
ourt
h an
d fif
th a
pplic
ants
bot
h ph
ysic
ally
and
psy
chol
ogic
ally
and
mus
t hav
e ha
d pa
rtic
ular
ly n
efar
ious
effe
cts
on th
e fif
th a
pplic
ant i
n vi
ew o
f his
very
you
ng a
ge T
hose
effe
cts w
ere
hard
ly o
ffset
by
the
few
hou
rs th
at
he sp
ent i
n th
e ho
spita
l in
Vidi
n in
the
afte
rnoo
n an
d ev
enin
g of
18A
ugus
t 201
5 (s
ee p
arag
raph
25
abov
e)
lsquo90
By
keep
ing
thos
e th
ree
appl
ican
ts in
such
con
ditio
ns e
ven
for a
brie
f per
iod
of ti
me
the
Bulg
aria
n au
thor
ities
subj
ecte
d th
em to
inhu
man
and
deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent
lsquo91
It i
s tru
e th
at in
rece
nt y
ears
the
High
Con
trac
ting
Stat
es th
at si
t on
the
Euro
pean
Uni
onrsquos
exte
rnal
bo
rder
s had
diff
icul
ties i
n co
ping
with
the
mas
sive
influ
x of
mig
rant
s (se
e M
SS
v B
elgi
um a
nd G
reec
e
citedab
ovesect223
)Bu
taperusalofthe
relevantstatisticss
howstha
talth
ough
thenu
mbe
rsarenot
negl
igib
le i
n re
cent
yea
rs B
ulga
ria h
as b
y no
mea
ns b
een
the
wor
st a
ffect
ed c
ount
ry (s
ee p
arag
raph
s 8
and
39-4
1 ab
ove)
Ind
eed
the
num
ber o
f thi
rd-c
ount
ry n
atio
nals
foun
d ill
egal
ly p
rese
nt o
n its
terr
itory
in
the
cour
se o
f 201
5 w
as a
bout
twen
ty ti
mes
low
er th
an in
Gre
ece
and
abou
t for
ty-fo
ur ti
mes
low
er th
an
in H
unga
ry (i
bid
) It
cann
ot th
eref
ore
be sa
id th
at a
t the
rele
vant
tim
e Bu
lgar
ia w
as fa
cing
an
emer
genc
y of
such
pro
port
ions
that
it w
as p
ract
ical
ly im
poss
ible
for i
ts to
ens
ure
min
imal
ly d
ecen
t con
ditio
ns in
th
e sh
ort-t
erm
hol
ding
faci
litie
s in
whi
ch th
ey d
ecid
ed to
pla
ce m
inor
mig
rant
s im
med
iate
ly a
fter t
heir
inte
rcep
tion
and
arre
st (c
ontr
ast
mut
atis
mut
andi
s K
hlai
fia a
nd O
ther
scite
dab
ovesectsect17
8-83
)
Alim
ov v
Tur
key
no
143
4413
6 Septem
ber2
016
Anan
yev
and
Oth
ers
v Ru
ssia
nos
425
250
7 an
d 60
800
08
10 Ja
nuary20
12
Atan
asov
and
Ap
osto
lov
v Bu
lgar
ia
(dec
) no
s 655
401
6 an
d22
36817
27 June
20
17
Chob
an v
Bul
garia
(dec)no
487
3799
23 Ju
ne200
5
Davy
dov
and
O
ther
s v U
krai
ne
nos 1
7674
02
and
3908
102
1 Ju
ly201
0
De lo
s San
tos a
nd
de la
Cru
z v G
reec
e
nos 2
134
12 a
nd
2161
1226 June
201
4
Dem
opou
los a
nd O
ther
s v
Turk
ey (d
ec) [
GC]
nos 4
6113
99
384
302
13
751
02 1
3466
03
10
200
04 1
4163
04
19
993
04 2
1819
04
1 March201
0
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 119
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo92
In
any
even
t in
vie
w o
f the
abs
olut
e ch
arac
ter o
f Art
icle
3 o
f the
Con
vent
ion
an
incr
easin
g in
flux
of
mig
rant
s can
not a
bsol
ve a
Hig
h Co
ntra
ctin
g St
ate
of it
s obl
igat
ions
und
er th
at p
rovi
sion
whi
ch re
quire
s th
at p
eopl
e de
priv
ed o
f the
ir lib
erty
be
guar
ante
ed c
ondi
tions
com
patib
le w
ith re
spec
t for
thei
r hum
an
dign
ity A
situ
atio
n of
ext
rem
e di
fficu
lty c
onfr
ontin
g th
e au
thor
ities
is h
owev
er o
ne o
f the
fact
ors i
n th
e as
sess
men
t whe
ther
or n
ot th
ere
has b
een
a br
each
of t
hat A
rtic
le in
rela
tion
to th
e co
nditi
ons i
n w
hich
suchpeo
plearekeptin
custody
(ibidsectsect18
4-85
)
lsquo93
In
view
of t
he a
bove
con
sider
atio
ns t
he C
ourt
con
clud
es th
at th
ere
has b
een
a br
each
of A
rtic
le 3
of
the
Conv
entio
n w
ith re
spec
t to
the
third
fou
rth
and
fifth
app
lican
tsrsquo
Djal
ti v
Bulg
aria
no
312
060512 March
2013
Erke
nov
v Tu
rkey
no
181
5211
6 Septem
ber2
016
Foti
and
Oth
ers v
Ital
y
nos 7
604
76 7
719
76
7781
7711 May197
8
Giul
iani
and
Ga
ggio
v It
aly
[GC]
no
234
580224 March
2011
Gros
s v S
witz
erla
nd
[GC]n
o 67
81010
30
Sep
tembe
r201
4
Hara
kchi
ev a
nd
Tolu
mov
v B
ulga
ria
nos 1
5018
11
and
6119
912
8 Ju
ly201
4
Hous
ein
v Gr
eece
no
718
2511
24 Octob
er201
3
Husa
yn (A
bu
Zuba
ydah
) v P
olan
d
no 751
113
24 July
2014
Irela
nd v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no 53
1071
18 Ja
nuary19
78
120 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Jano
wie
c and
Oth
ers
v Ru
ssia
[GC]
no
s 555
080
7 an
d 295200921 Octob
er
2013
Kadiķis v
Latv
ia (n
o 2)
no
62393004 M
ay
2006
Kana
gara
tnam
v
Belg
ium
no 1529709
13 Decem
ber2
011
Khla
ifia
and
Oth
ers v
Ital
y
[GC]no 1648312
15 Decem
ber2
016
Korn
eyko
va a
nd
Korn
eyko
v v U
krai
ne
no 566601224 March
2016
Loizd
ou v
Turk
ey
(pre
limin
ary
obje
ctio
ns)
no 153188923 March
1995
MSS
v B
elgi
um
and
Gree
ce [
GC]
no 306960921 Janu
ary
2011
Mah
amed
Jam
a v
Mal
tano 1029013
26 Novem
ber2
015
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 121
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Mah
mun
di a
nd O
ther
s v
Gree
cen
o 14
90210
31
July201
2
McF
eele
y an
d ot
hers
v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no
831
778
2 Octob
er
1984
Miro
ļubo
vs and
Others
v La
tvia
no 79
805
15
Sep
tembe
r200
9
Moh
amad
v G
reec
e
no 705
8611
11 Decem
ber2
014
Mox
amed
Ism
aaci
il an
d Ab
dira
hman
War
sam
e v
Mal
ta n
os 5
2160
13
and
5216
513
12
Janu
ary20
16
Mus
khad
zhiy
eva
and
Oth
ers v
Bel
gium
no
414
4207
19 Ja
nuary20
10
Nac
hova
and
Oth
ers
v Bu
lgar
ia [G
C]
nos 4
3577
98
and
4357
998
6 Ju
ly200
5
122 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Nesh
kov a
nd O
ther
s v
Bulg
aria
nos
36
925
10 2
1487
12
72
893
12 7
3196
12
77
718
12 a
nd 9
717
13
27 Janu
ary2015
Popo
v v Fr
ance
no
s 394
720
7 an
d 394740719 Janu
ary
2012
Pose
vini
v B
ulga
ria
no 636381419 Janu
ary
2017
RC a
nd V
C v
Fran
ce
no 764911412 July
2016
RK a
nd O
ther
s v Fr
ance
no
682641412 July
2016
RM a
nd O
ther
s v Fr
ance
no
332011112 July
2016
Rahi
mi v
Gre
ece
no
8687085 April
2011
SAS
v Fr
ance
[GC]
no
43835111 Ju
ly
2014
Sarg
syan
v A
zerb
aija
n [GC]no 4016706
16 Ju
ne2015
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 123
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Scoz
zari
and
Giun
ta v
Ital
y [G
C]
nos 3
9221
98
and
419639813 July2000
Step
ulea
c v M
oldo
va
no 820706
6 No
vembe
r2007
Tara
khel
v Sw
itzer
land
[GC]no 2921712
4 No
vembe
r2014
Tehr
ani a
nd O
ther
s v
Turk
ey n
os 3
2940
08
41
626
08 4
3661
608
13 April2
010
124 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
Thim
otha
wes
v B
elgi
um
no 390
6111(in
French
with
Eng
lish
sum
mar
y)
040
420
18
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 5
ECH
R ndash
dete
ntio
n ndash
asyl
um-s
eeke
r ndash re
foul
emen
t ndash m
enta
l hea
lth o
f the
app
lican
t
Uno
ffici
al tr
ansla
tion
Para
79
lsquo79M
oreo
vertheCo
urtcon
siderstha
tinorderto
find
aviolatio
nofArticle5sect1the
app
lican
tsho
uld
have
est
ablis
hed
that
he
was
in a
par
ticul
ar si
tuat
ion
whi
ch c
ould
prim
a fa
cie
lead
to th
e co
nclu
sion
that
hisd
eten
tionwasnotju
stified
(see
con
verselyYoh-EkaleMwan
jecite
dab
ovesect124
)Ho
weverthe
ap
plic
antrsquos
men
tal h
ealth
alo
ne w
as n
ot i
n th
e pr
esen
t cas
e su
ch a
s to
lead
to su
ch a
con
clus
ion
the
appl
ican
t rec
eive
d sp
ecia
l car
e in
the
two
clos
ed c
entr
es w
here
he
stay
ed a
nd th
e re
port
s dra
wn
up b
y th
e ps
ycho
logi
cal s
uppo
rt se
rvic
es d
id n
ot in
dica
te a
ny c
ontr
a-in
dica
tion
to d
eten
tion
(see
par
agra
phs 3
4-35
ab
ove)
rsquo
A an
d O
ther
s v
Uni
ted
King
dom
[GC]n
o 34
5505
19 Feb
ruary20
09
AB a
nd O
ther
s v
Fran
cen
o 11
59312
12
July201
6
Abdu
llahi
Elm
i and
Aw
eys A
buba
kar
v M
alta
nos
257
941
3 an
d 28
151
13
22 Novem
ber2
016
Anhe
user
-Bus
ch
Inc
v Po
rtug
al
[GC]n
o 73
04901
11
Janu
ary20
07
Assa
nidz
e v
Geor
gia
[GC]n
o 71
50301
8 Ap
ril200
4
Chah
al v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(GC
) no
224
1493
15 Novem
ber1
995
Čonka
v Be
lgiu
m
no 515
6499
5 Februa
ry200
2
Crea
ngă
v Ro
man
ia
[GC]n
o 29
22603
23
Feb
ruary20
12
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 125
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Del R
iacuteo P
rada
v S
pain
[GC]no 4275009
21 Octob
er2013
Hass
an v
The
Un
ited
King
dom
[GC]no 2975009
19 Sep
tembe
r2014
Hous
ein
v Gr
eece
no
7182511
24 Octob
er2013
Jeun
esse
v T
he
Neth
erla
nds [
GC]
no 12738103 Octob
er
2014
Kana
gara
tnam
v
Belg
ium
no 1529709
13 Decem
ber2
011
Khla
ifia
and
Oth
ers v
Ital
y [GC]no 1648312
15 Decem
ber2
016
Khol
mur
odov
v R
ussia
no
58923141 M
arch
2016
Labi
ta c
Italy
[GC]
no
26772956 April
2000
126 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Med
vedy
ev a
nd
Oth
ers v
Fran
ce [G
C]
no 33940329 March
2010
Moo
ren
v Ge
rman
y [GC]no 1136403
9 July2009
Moz
er v
The
Rup
ublic
of
Mol
dova
and
Rus
sia
[GC]no 1113810
23 Fe
bruary2016
Mub
ilanz
ila M
ayek
a an
d Ka
niki
Mitu
nga
v Be
lgiu
m no
1317
803
12 Octob
er2006
Mus
khad
zhiy
eva
and
Oth
ers v
Bel
gium
no
414420719 Janu
ary
2010
Nabi
l and
Oth
ers
v Hun
garyno 6211612
22 Sep
tembe
r2015
Ntum
ba K
abon
go
v Be
lgiu
m (d
ec)
no 52467992 Ju
ne
2005
Para
diso
and
Ca
mpa
nelli
v Ita
ly
[GC]no 2535812
24 Janu
ary2017
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 127
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Popo
v v Fr
ance
no
s 394
720
7 an
d 394740719 Janu
ary
2012
Rahi
mi v
Gre
ece
no
8687085 April
2011
Rohl
ena
v Th
e Cz
ech
Repu
blic
[GC]
no
595520827 Janu
ary
2015
Rusu
v A
ustr
ia
no 34082022 Octob
er
2008
Saad
i v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
[GC]no 1322903
29 Janu
ary2008
Suso
Mus
a v
Mal
ta
no 423371223 July
2013
Taku
sh v
Gre
ece
no
28530917 Janu
ary
2012
Ulle
ns d
e Sc
hoot
en a
nd
Reza
bek
v Be
lgiu
m
nos 3
989
07
et 3
8353
07
20 Sep
tembe
r2011
128 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Wai
te a
nd K
enne
dy
v Ge
rman
y [G
C]
no 2608394
18 Fe
bruary1999
Yoh-
Ekal
e M
wan
je
v Be
lgiu
mno 1048610
20 Decem
ber2
011
ECtH
R
HA e
t aut
res c
Gregrave
ce
no 199
5116(in
French
with
Eng
lish
sum
mar
y)
280
220
19
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R - i
nhum
an a
nd d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t - co
nditi
ons o
f the
app
lican
tsrsquo d
eten
tion
in th
e po
lice
stat
ions
Unof
ficia
l tra
nsla
tion
Para
s 11
1-11
5
lsquo111O
n13 April2
016th
eprosecutoratthe
KilkisMagistratesrsquoCo
urto
rdered
aprelim
inaryinvestigation
lsquo112
In
the
cour
se o
f tha
t inv
estig
atio
n co
nduc
ted
by th
e po
lice
offic
ers o
f the
Kilk
is po
lice
stat
ion
the
offic
ers
who
wereon
dutyatth
atstationon
8and
9 April2
016th
epo
liceofficerwho
hadaccom
panied
thetw
oap
plica
nts t
o th
e Ki
lkis
hosp
ital a
nd th
e po
lice
offic
er w
ho h
ad ta
ken
the
appl
icant
liste
d in
App
endi
x 7 to
the
Thes
salo
niki
hos
pita
l mad
e re
port
s Th
e po
lice
offic
er w
ho h
ad a
ccom
pani
ed th
e tw
o ap
plica
nts t
o th
e Ki
lkis
hosp
ital s
tate
d th
at ldquot
he a
pplic
ants
did
not
hav
e th
e at
titud
e of
sick
or b
eate
n-up
peo
ple
and
show
ed a
t all
times
that
they
wer
e w
ellrdquo
In a
dditi
on f
our f
orei
gn n
atio
nals
who
had
bee
n de
tain
ed a
t the
sam
e tim
e as
the
two
appl
icant
s at t
he K
ilkis
polic
e st
atio
n al
so g
ave
stat
emen
ts t
hey
stat
ed th
at th
e be
havi
our o
f the
pol
ice
offic
ers t
owar
ds th
e ap
plica
nts h
ad b
een
corr
ect
that
they
had
not
use
d an
y vi
olen
ce a
gain
st th
e ap
plica
nts
that
they
had
repe
ated
ly a
sked
the
appl
icant
s whe
ther
they
wish
ed to
go
to h
ospi
tal a
nd th
at a
t one
poi
nt
whe
n th
e ap
plica
nts h
ad re
port
edly
bee
n ca
lm t
hey
had
begu
n to
pro
test
and
requ
este
d th
eir t
rans
fer t
o ho
spita
l a
requ
est w
hich
wou
ld h
ave
been
gra
nted
lsquo113
On
the
basis
of t
hese
fact
s th
e Ki
lkis
polic
e st
atio
n se
nt a
repo
rt to
the
publ
ic pr
osec
utor
at t
he K
ilkis
Mag
istra
tesrsquo
Cour
t sta
ting
that
thr
ough
out t
he tw
o ap
plica
ntsrsquo
stay
at t
he p
olice
stat
ion
the
polic
e of
ficer
srsquo co
nduc
t tow
ards
the
appl
icant
s had
bee
n ap
prop
riate
and
resp
ectfu
l of h
uman
righ
ts a
nd o
f the
rule
s and
law
s go
vern
ing
the
oper
atio
n of
the
Gree
k po
lice
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 129
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo114O
n24 Octob
er2016thepu
blicprosecutoratthe
KilkisMagistratesrsquoCo
urtp
ropo
sedtoclosethecase
He p
oint
ed o
ut th
at th
e ab
ove-
men
tione
d re
port
s sho
wed
that
the
polic
e of
ficer
s had
not
eng
aged
in v
iole
nt
beha
viou
r th
at th
e ap
plica
nts t
hem
selve
s had
bee
n th
e ca
use
of th
e un
rest
at K
ilkis
polic
e st
atio
n th
at th
ey
had
been
tran
sferr
ed to
hos
pita
l th
at th
ey co
uld
com
mun
icate
with
third
par
ties (
repr
esen
tativ
es o
f non
-go
vern
men
tal o
rgan
isatio
ns) a
nd th
at n
one
of th
eir a
llega
tions
had
bee
n co
nfirm
ed b
y an
y ev
iden
ce H
e st
ated
th
at w
hene
ver t
he a
pplic
ants
had
requ
este
d it
they
had
bee
n tra
nsfe
rred
to K
ilkis
Hosp
ital
whe
re th
ey h
ad
been
foun
d to
be
in g
ood
heal
th a
nd th
at o
nly
the
appl
icant
liste
d in
the
anne
x und
er n
umbe
r 7 h
ad sh
own
som
e sy
mpt
oms o
f dizz
ines
s and
suffo
catio
n w
ith a
card
iolo
gica
l cau
se
lsquo115O
n25 Janu
ary2017th
epu
blicprosecutoratthe
The
ssalon
ikiCou
rtofA
ppealapp
rovedthede
cisionof
the
publ
ic pr
osec
utor
in K
ilkis
and
close
d th
e ca
sersquo
130 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R (G
rand
Ch
ambe
r)
Ilias
and
Ahm
ed
v Hu
ngar
y
no 472
8715
211
120
19
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R - i
nhum
an a
nd d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t ndash re
mov
al to
Ser
bia
Para
192
lsquo192
The
Gra
nd C
ham
ber e
ndor
ses t
he C
ham
berrsquos
vie
w th
at w
hile
it is
true
that
asy
lum
-see
kers
may
be
cons
ider
ed v
ulne
rabl
e be
caus
e of
eve
ryth
ing
they
mig
ht h
ave
been
thro
ugh
durin
g th
eir m
igra
tion
and
the
trau
mat
ic e
xper
ienc
es th
ey w
ere
likel
y to
hav
e en
dure
d pr
evio
usly
(see
MS
S v
Bel
gium
and
Gre
ece)
th
ere
is no
indi
catio
n th
at th
e ap
plic
ants
in th
e pr
esen
t cas
e w
ere
mor
e vu
lner
able
than
any
oth
er a
dult
asyl
um-s
eeke
r con
fined
to th
e Rӧ
szke
tran
sit zo
ne in
Sep
tem
ber 2
015
In p
artic
ular
the
ir al
lega
tions
ab
out h
ards
hip
and
ill-t
reat
men
t end
ured
in P
akist
an A
fgha
nist
an I
ran
Dub
ai a
nd T
urke
y co
ncer
n a
perio
d of
tim
e w
hich
end
ed in
201
0 or
201
1 fo
r the
firs
t app
lican
t and
in 2
013
for t
he se
cond
app
lican
t Al
so t
he C
ourt
doe
s not
con
sider
that
the
psyc
hiat
ristrsquos
opi
nion
(see
par
agra
ph 3
0 ab
ove)
subm
itted
by
the
appl
ican
ts is
dec
isive
hav
ing
rega
rd to
its c
onte
xt a
nd c
onte
nt a
nd ta
king
into
con
sider
atio
n th
at th
e ap
plic
ants
stay
ed a
t the
Rӧs
zke
tran
sit zo
ne fo
r the
rela
tivel
y sh
ort p
erio
d of
23
days
the
psy
chia
trist
rsquos ob
serv
atio
ns c
anno
t lea
d to
the
conc
lusio
n th
at th
e ot
herw
ise a
ccep
tabl
e co
nditi
ons a
t the
Rӧs
zke
tran
sit
zone
wer
e pa
rtic
ular
ly il
l-sui
ted
in th
e ap
plic
ants
rsquo ind
ivid
ual c
ircum
stan
ces t
o su
ch a
n ex
tent
as t
o am
ount
to
ill-t
reat
men
t con
trar
y to
Art
icle
3rsquo
Abdu
laziz
Cab
ales
and
Ba
lkand
ali v
Uni
ted
King
dom
nos
921
480
94
738
1 9
474
81
Abuy
eva
and
Oth
ers
v Ru
ssia2 Decem
ber
2010no 2706505
28 M
ay1985
Al D
ulim
i and
Mon
tana
M
anag
emen
t Inc
v
Switz
erla
nd [G
C]
no 58090821 June
20
16
Alla
n v
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m
(dec)no
485399928
Augu
st 2
001
Amuu
r v F
ranc
e
no 197
769225 June
19
96
Avotiņš v
Lat
via
[GC]
no
175
020723 May
2016
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 131
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Azin
as v
Cyp
rus [
GC]
no 566
790028 Ap
ril
2004
Baba
jano
v v
Turk
ey
no 498
670810 May
2016
Bosp
horu
s Hav
a Yo
llari
Turiz
m v
e Ti
care
t An
onim
Sirk
eti v
Irel
and
[GC]n
o 45
03698
30
June
200
5
Budr
evic
h v
Czec
h Re
publ
icn
o 65
30310
17
Octob
er201
3
Buza
dji v
Mol
dova
[GC]n
o 23
75507
5 July201
6
Chah
al v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(GC
) no
224
1493
15 Novem
ber1
995
DH a
nd O
ther
s v
Czec
h Re
publ
ic
[GC]n
o 57
32500
13
Novem
ber2
007
De To
mm
aso
v Ita
ly
[GC]n
o 43
39509
23
Feb
ruary20
17
132 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
De W
ilde
Oom
s and
Ve
rsyp
nos
283
266
28
356
6 2
899
66
10 M
arch197
2
FG v
Sw
eden
[GC]
no
436
111123 March
2016
Faacutebi
aacuten v
Hun
gary
[GC]n
o 78
11713
5 Septem
ber2
017
Gahr
aman
ov
v Az
erba
ijan
(dec
) no
262
910
6
15 Octob
er201
3
Gillb
erg
v Sw
eden
[GC]
no
417
23063 April
2012
Goumlccedil
v Tu
rkey
[GC]
no
365
909711 July
2002
Guer
ra a
nd
Oth
ers v
Ital
y
no 116
199
673
593
2
19 Feb
ruary19
98
Guzz
ardi
v It
aly
no
736
776
6 Novem
ber1
980
HLR
v Fr
ance
no
245
739429 Ap
ril
1997
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 133
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Herr
man
n v
Germ
any
[GC]n
o 93
0007
26 Ju
ne201
2
Hila
l v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 452
76996 M
arch
2001
Hirs
i Jam
aa a
nd
Oth
ers v
Ital
y [G
C]
no 277
6509
23 Feb
ruary20
12
II v
Bulg
aria
no
440
82989 Ju
ne
2005
J and
Oth
ers v
Gre
ece
no
226
9616
25 Ja
nuary20
18
K an
d T
v Fi
nlan
d [G
C]
no 257
029412 July
2001
KRS
v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
(dec)no
327
3308
2 De
cembe
r200
8
Kasp
arov
v R
ussia
no
536
5907
11 Octob
er201
6
Khla
ifia
and
Oth
ers v
Ital
y [G
C]
no 164
8312
15 Decem
ber2
016
134 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Kovačić an
d Others
v Sl
oven
ia [G
C]
nos 4
4574
98
45
133
98 4
8316
99
3 Octob
er200
8
Kurić
and
Others
v Sl
oven
ia [G
C]
no 268
280612 March
2014
Kurt
v T
urke
y
no 1519
97799
100
2
25 M
ay199
8
MSS
v B
elgi
um
and
Gree
ce [
GC]
no 306
9609
21 Ja
nuary20
11
Mah
did
and
Hadd
ar
v Au
stria
(dec
) no
747
6201
8 De
cembe
r200
5
Mam
atku
lov
and
Aska
rov
v Tu
rkey
[GC]
no
s 468
279
9 an
d 46
95199
4 Feb
ruary
2005
Mog
oş v
Rom
ania
(dec)no
204
2002
6 May200
4
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 135
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Moh
amm
adi v
Aus
tria
no
719
32123 Ju
ly
2014
Moh
amm
ed H
usse
in
and
Oth
ers v
the
Net
herla
nds a
nd It
aly
(dec)no
277
2510
2 Ap
ril201
3
Mur
ray
v th
e N
ethe
rland
s [GC
] no
105
111026 Ap
ril
2016
Nad
a v
Switz
erla
nd
[GC]n
o 10
59308
12
Sep
tembe
r201
2
Nol
an a
nd K
v
Russ
ian
o 25
1204
12 Feb
ruary20
09
Osy
penk
o v
Ukr
aine
no
463
404
9 Novem
ber2
010
Papo
shvi
li v
Belg
ium
no
417
3810
13 Decem
ber2
016
Pern
a v
Italy
[GC]
no
488
98996 M
ay
2003
Pisa
no v
Ital
y (s
trik
ing
out)[G
C]n
o 36
73297
24
Octob
er200
2
136 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Rado
milj
a an
d O
ther
s v
Croa
tia [G
C]
nos 3
7685
10
and
2276
812
20 March
2018
Riad
and
Idia
b v
Belg
ium
no
s 297
870
3 an
d 29
81003
24 Janu
ary
2008
Sabri G
uumlneş
v T
urke
y [GC]n
o 27
39606
29
June
201
2
Sala
h Sh
eekh
v
the
Net
herla
nds
no
194
804
11 Janu
ary
2007
Sham
sa v
Pol
and
no
s 453
559
9 an
d 45
357
99
27 Novem
ber2
003
Shar
ifi v
Aus
tria
no
601
0408
15 Decem
ber2
013
Siso
jeva
and
O
ther
s v L
atvi
a [GC]n
o 60
65400
15
Janu
ary20
07
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 137
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Soer
ing
v Un
ited
King
dom
no
1403
888
7 July198
9
TI v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(dec)no
438
4498
7 March200
0
Tara
khel
v S
witz
erla
nd
[GC]
no
2921
712
4 Novem
ber2
014
Uumlne
r v th
e N
ethe
rland
s [GC]n
o 46
41099
18
Octob
er200
6
Venskutė
v L
ithua
nia
no
106
4508
11 Decem
ber2
012
Vija
yana
than
and
Pu
spar
ajah
v F
ranc
e
no 178
259127
Augu
st 1
992
Vilv
araj
ah a
nd O
ther
s v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no
s 131
638
7
1316
487
131
658
7
1344
787
134
488
7
30 Octob
er199
1
Zuba
c v
Croa
tia [G
C]
no 401
60125 April
2018
138 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Uni
ted
Nat
ions
hum
an ri
ghts
mon
itorin
g co
mm
ittee
s
Com
mitt
eeCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
dat
eRe
leva
nce
keyw
ords
key
rele
vant
par
agra
phs
Case
s cite
d
Com
mitt
ee
Agai
nst
Tort
ure
Gba
djav
i v S
witz
erla
nd
CAT
C48
D3
962
009
010
720
12
Deci
sion
of th
e Co
mm
ittee
aga
inst
Tort
ure
unde
r Art
icle
22
of th
e Co
nven
tion
agai
nst T
ortu
re a
nd O
ther
Cr
uel
Inhu
man
or D
egra
ding
Tre
atm
ent o
r Pun
ishm
ent
Risk
of c
ompl
aina
ntrsquos
depo
rtat
ion
to To
go -
Depo
rtat
ion
of a
per
son
to a
noth
er S
tate
whe
re th
ere
are
subs
tant
ial g
roun
ds fo
r bel
ievi
ng th
at h
e w
ould
be
in d
ange
r of b
eing
subj
ecte
d to
tort
ure
Para
78
lsquo78
As t
o th
e m
edic
al c
ertif
icat
es a
nd re
port
s sub
mitt
ed in
supp
ort o
f the
com
plai
nant
rsquos as
ylum
ap
plicationth
ethreemed
icalcertificatesof2
5 July200
77 M
arch200
8an
d29
April20
09con
firm
the
prec
ario
us m
enta
l hea
lth o
f the
com
plai
nant
whi
ch is
con
nect
ed to
his
past
exp
erie
nces
As t
o th
e med
icalre
portof1
8 May200
9iss
uedbyth
epsychiatric
servicesofS
olothu
rnthe
Com
mittee
notes
that
it m
entio
ns te
rror
ism o
r tor
ture
as a
pos
sible
cau
se o
f the
pos
t-tra
umat
ic st
ress
diso
rder
that
the
com
plai
nant
was
dia
gnos
ed a
s hav
ing
The
Com
mitt
ee is
of t
he v
iew
that
such
ele
men
ts sh
ould
hav
e ca
ught
the
atte
ntio
n of
the
Stat
e pa
rty
and
cons
titut
ed su
ffici
ent g
roun
ds fo
r inv
estig
atin
g th
e al
lege
d ris
ks m
ore
thor
ough
ly T
he F
eder
al A
dmin
istra
tive
Cour
t sim
ply
reje
cted
them
bec
ause
they
wer
e no
t lik
ely
to c
all i
nto
ques
tion
the
asse
ssm
ent o
f the
fact
s mad
e in
pre
viou
s rul
ings
By
proc
eedi
ng in
thus
w
ithou
t con
sider
ing
thos
e el
emen
ts e
ven
thou
gh th
ey w
ere
subm
itted
at a
late
stag
e in
the
proc
eedi
ngs
th
e Sw
iss a
utho
ritie
s fai
led
in th
eir o
blig
atio
n to
ens
ure
that
the
com
plai
nant
wou
ld n
ot b
e at
risk
of b
eing
su
bjec
ted
to to
rtur
e if
he w
ere
retu
rned
to To
gorsquo
SPA
v Ca
nada
no
282
200
5
7 Novem
ber2
006
TI v
Can
ada
no
333
200
7
15 Novem
ber2
010
AMA
v Sw
itzer
land
no
344
200
8
12 Novem
ber2
010
AR v
Net
herla
nds
no
203
200
2
21 Novem
ber2
003
AA e
t al v
Sw
itzer
land
no
285
200
6
10 Novem
ber2
008
RT-N
v S
witz
erla
nd
no 350
200
83 Ju
ne
2011
Hum
an R
ight
s Co
mm
ittee
Tog
o
(CCP
RC
TGO
CO
4)
18 April20
11
Com
mitt
ee a
gain
st
Tort
ure
Togo
(CA
TC
TGOCO1)28
July
2006
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 139
Com
mitt
eeCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
dat
eRe
leva
nce
keyw
ords
key
rele
vant
par
agra
phs
Case
s cite
d
Com
mitt
ee
Agai
nst
Tort
ure
KH v
Den
mar
k
CAT
C49
D 4
642
011
231
120
12
Deci
sion
of th
e Co
mm
ittee
aga
inst
Tort
ure
unde
r Art
icle
22
of th
e Co
nven
tion
agai
nst T
ortu
re a
nd O
ther
Cr
uel
Inhu
man
or D
egra
ding
Tre
atm
ent o
r Pun
ishm
ent
Expu
lsion
of t
he c
ompl
aina
nt to
Afg
hani
stan
ndash ri
sk o
f tor
ture
upo
n re
turn
to th
e co
untr
y of
orig
in
Para
24
lsquo24The
com
plaina
ntarrived
inDen
markon
25 July201
0with
outv
alidtraveldocum
entsand
app
liedfor
asyl
um th
e ne
xt d
ay S
ince
he
was
illit
erat
e he
cou
ld n
ot c
ompl
ete
the
asyl
um a
pplic
atio
n fo
rm b
y hi
mse
lf
He c
laim
ed th
at h
e w
as fl
eein
g fr
om th
e Ta
liban
and
the
Afgh
an a
utho
ritie
s H
e ha
d be
en d
etai
ned
by th
e Ta
liban
and
then
arr
este
d by
the
auth
oriti
es a
nd w
rong
ly a
ccus
ed o
f a te
rror
ist b
ombi
ng a
ttac
k w
hile
in
dete
ntio
n he
had
bee
n ill
-tre
ated
and
tort
ured
in su
ch a
way
that
som
e of
his
ribs h
ad b
een
brok
en H
e ad
ded
that
tort
ure
was
wid
espr
ead
in A
fgha
nist
an a
nd th
at th
e au
thor
ities
wer
e un
able
to p
rote
ct th
e po
pula
tion
from
the
Talib
anrsquos
viol
ence
He
fear
ed fo
r his
life
since
he
had
been
arr
este
d by
the
auth
oriti
es
in c
onne
ctio
n w
ith a
n ex
plos
ion
in Ja
lala
bad
he
had
been
forc
ed b
y th
e Ta
liban
to c
oope
rate
with
them
an
d he
had
esc
aped
from
pris
on a
fter p
ayin
g a
brib
e If
re-a
rres
ted
he
wou
ld b
e su
bjec
ted
to to
rtur
e an
d ki
lled
He
fear
ed th
e sa
me
if th
e Ta
liban
wer
e to
find
him
sin
ce th
ey st
ill b
elie
ved
that
he
was
a sp
y fo
r th
e Go
vern
men
t Th
e co
mpl
aina
nt w
as n
ot a
war
e of
the
whe
reab
outs
of h
is fa
mily
and
cou
ld n
ot p
rovi
de
a na
tiona
lity
cert
ifica
te is
sued
by
his c
ount
ry o
f orig
inrsquo
Para
54
lsquo54
The
Dan
ish a
utho
ritie
s bas
ed th
eir a
sses
smen
t abo
ut th
e cr
edib
ility
of h
is cl
aim
on
the
dive
rgen
t st
atem
ents
he
gave
at t
he b
egin
ning
of t
he a
sylu
m p
roce
edin
gs H
owev
er t
his p
robl
em o
ften
occu
rs in
th
e fir
st in
terv
iew
of a
sylu
m se
eker
s si
nce
they
fear
to te
ll th
e tr
uth
and
feel
inse
cure
Nev
erth
eles
s th
e co
mpl
aina
nt in
form
ed th
e im
mig
ratio
n au
thor
ities
abo
ut th
e ci
rcum
stan
ces i
n w
hich
he
was
tort
ured
and
ev
en su
bmitt
ed m
edic
al e
vide
nce
in su
ppor
t of h
is cl
aim
He
reite
rate
s tha
t his
stat
emen
tsrsquo i
ncon
siste
ncie
s w
ere
caus
ed b
y in
adeq
uate
inte
rpre
tatio
n w
hich
in h
is ca
se w
as p
artic
ular
ly im
port
ant s
ince
he
is ill
itera
te a
nd c
ould
not
read
and
con
firm
whe
ther
tran
slatio
ns re
flect
ed in
an
accu
rate
man
ner w
hat h
e w
ished
to c
omm
unic
ate
to th
e au
thor
ities
His
coun
sel c
ould
not
che
ck th
e ac
cura
cy o
f the
tran
slatio
n sin
ce h
e is
not a
Pas
hto
spea
ker
Ther
efor
e th
ere
was
no
way
to v
erify
whe
ther
thes
e tr
ansla
tions
not
ed
in th
e de
cisio
ns o
f the
Imm
igra
tion
Serv
ice
and
the
Refu
gee
Appe
als B
oard
wer
e co
rrec
t and
acc
urat
ersquo
Amin
i v D
enm
ark
no
339
200
8
15 Novem
ber2
010
ERK
and
YK v
Sw
eden
no
s 270
200
5 an
d 27
120
053
0 Ap
ril
2007
SPA
v Ca
nada
no
282
200
5
7 Novem
ber2
006
FFZ
v De
nmar
k
no 180
200
130 Ap
ril
2002
SC v
Den
mar
k
no 143
199
910 May
2000
RD v
Sw
eden
no
220
200
22 M
ay
2005
SSS
v Ca
nada
no
245
200
4
16 Novem
ber2
005
MRA
v S
wed
en
no 286
200
6
17 Novem
ber2
006
Elm
i v A
ustr
alia
no
120
199
814 May
2009
140 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Com
mitt
eeCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
dat
eRe
leva
nce
keyw
ords
key
rele
vant
par
agra
phs
Case
s cite
d
Para
86
lsquo86
The
Com
mitt
ee n
otes
that
the
com
plai
nant
cont
ests
the
Stat
e pa
rtyrsquos
ass
essm
ent a
s to
the
risk
he w
ould
fa
ce if
retu
rned
to A
fgha
nist
an H
e cla
ims t
hat h
e w
ould
be
at ri
sk o
f per
secu
tion
by th
e Ta
liban
and
the
Afgh
an
auth
oriti
es T
he C
omm
ittee
not
es th
at th
e co
mpl
aina
nt cl
aim
s tha
t the
Sta
te p
arty
has
not
exp
lain
ed w
hy th
e un
cont
este
d cla
im co
ncer
ning
the
viol
ence
he
was
subj
ecte
d to
by
the
Talib
an is
not
rele
vant
und
er a
sylu
m
law
and
that
the
auth
oriti
es fa
iled
to a
sses
s whe
ther
the
Afgh
an a
utho
ritie
s wou
ld b
e ab
le to
pro
tect
him
ag
ains
t pos
sible
repr
isals
from
the
Talib
an A
s to
his c
laim
abo
ut th
e vi
olen
ce in
flict
ed b
y th
e Af
ghan
aut
horit
ies
the
Com
mitt
ee a
lso n
otes
that
the
com
plai
nant
clai
ms t
hat t
he S
tate
par
ty b
ased
its a
sses
smen
t abo
ut th
e cr
edib
ility
of h
is cla
im o
n th
e di
verg
ent s
tate
men
ts h
e ga
ve w
ithin
the
asyl
um p
roce
edin
gs t
hat h
is st
atem
entrsquos
in
cons
isten
cy st
emm
ed fr
om in
adeq
uate
lang
uage
inte
rpre
tatio
n a
nd th
at h
e w
as u
nabl
e to
chec
k it
since
he
is illi
tera
te H
e fu
rthe
r arg
ues t
hat a
lthou
gh h
e re
ques
ted
the
Refu
gee
Appe
als B
oard
for a
spec
ializ
ed m
edica
l ex
amin
atio
n in
ord
er to
verif
y w
heth
er h
e ha
s sig
ns o
f tor
ture
and
show
ed th
e Bo
ard
alle
ged
signs
of t
ortu
re
on h
is ha
nds a
nd o
ne le
g or
foot
the
Boa
rd re
ject
ed h
is re
ques
t for
asy
lum
with
out o
rder
ing
this
exam
inat
ion
rsquo
Para
88
lsquo88
The
Com
mitt
ee o
bser
ves t
hat i
n th
e in
terv
iew
s bef
ore
the
Dani
sh Im
mig
ratio
n Se
rvice
and
the
Refu
gee
Appe
als B
oard
the
com
plai
nant
who
is ill
itera
te p
rovi
ded
inco
nsist
ent s
tate
men
ts a
s to
his p
lace
of o
rigin
the
cir
cum
stan
ces i
n w
hich
he
was
det
aine
d by
the
Afgh
an p
olice
and
his
esca
pe fr
om p
rison
tha
t the
inte
rvie
ws
wer
e he
ld w
ith th
e as
sista
nce
of a
n in
terp
rete
r to
and
from
Pas
hto
and
that
the
com
plai
nant
trie
d to
clar
ify h
is statem
entsfo
llowingqu
estio
nsduringtheBo
ardhe
aringThe
Com
mitteealso
notesth
aton10 Janu
ary2011
anddu
ringtheBo
ardhe
aringof17 Janu
ary2011the
complainantre
questedaspecialized
med
icalexamination
and
argu
ed th
at h
e la
cked
fina
ncia
l mea
ns to
pay
for a
n ex
amin
atio
n hi
mse
lf T
he C
omm
ittee
furt
her o
bser
ves
that
the
com
plai
nant
rsquos al
lega
tion
that
he
show
ed to
the
Boar
d se
quel
ae o
f the
vio
lenc
e in
flict
ed b
y th
e Af
ghan
au
thor
ities
on
his h
ands
and
one
leg
or fo
ot w
as n
ot co
ntes
ted
by th
e St
ate
part
y Th
e Co
mm
ittee
cons
ider
s th
at a
lthou
gh it
is fo
r the
com
plai
nant
to e
stab
lish
a pr
ima
facie
case
to re
ques
t for
asy
lum
it d
oes n
ot e
xem
pt
the
Stat
e pa
rty
from
mak
ing
subs
tant
ial e
ffort
s to
dete
rmin
e w
heth
er th
ere
are
grou
nds f
or b
elie
ving
that
the
com
plai
nant
wou
ld b
e in
dan
ger o
f bei
ng su
bjec
ted
to to
rtur
e if
retu
rned
In
the
circu
mst
ance
s th
e Co
mm
ittee
co
nsid
ers t
hat t
he co
mpl
aina
nt p
rovi
ded
the
Stat
e pa
rtyrsquos
aut
horit
ies w
ith su
fficie
nt m
ater
ial s
uppo
rtin
g hi
s cla
ims o
f hav
ing
been
subj
ecte
d to
tort
ure
inclu
ding
two
med
ical m
emor
anda
to
seek
furt
her i
nves
tigat
ion
on th
e cla
ims t
hrou
gh i
nter
alia
a sp
ecia
lized
med
ical e
xam
inat
ion
The
refo
re t
he C
omm
ittee
conc
lude
s tha
t by
reje
ctin
g th
e co
mpl
aina
ntrsquos
asyl
um re
ques
t with
out s
eeki
ng fu
rthe
r inv
estig
atio
n on
his
claim
s or o
rder
ing
a m
edica
l exa
min
atio
n th
e St
ate
part
y ha
s fai
led
to d
eter
min
e w
heth
er th
ere
are
subs
tant
ial g
roun
ds fo
r be
lievi
ng th
at th
e co
mpl
aina
nt w
ould
be
in d
ange
r of b
eing
subj
ecte
d to
tort
ure
if re
turn
ed A
ccor
ding
ly th
e Co
mm
ittee
conc
lude
s tha
t in
the
circu
mst
ance
s th
e de
porta
tion
of th
e co
mpl
aina
nt to
his
coun
try
of o
rigin
w
ould
cons
titut
e a
viol
atio
n of
art
icle
3 of
the
Conv
entio
nrsquo
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 141
Com
mitt
eeCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
dat
eRe
leva
nce
keyw
ords
key
rele
vant
par
agra
phs
Case
s cite
d
Hum
an
Righ
ts
Com
mitt
ee
Razi
yeh
Reza
ifar
v De
nmar
k
CCPR
C
119
D25
122
014
100
320
17
View
s ado
pted
by
the
Com
mitt
ee u
nder
art
icle
5 (4
) of t
he O
ptio
nal P
roto
col
conc
erni
ng c
omm
unic
atio
n no
251
220
14
Depo
rtat
ion
to It
aly
- Tor
ture
cru
el i
nhum
an o
r deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent o
r pun
ishm
ent
Para
89
lsquo89
The
Com
mitt
ee re
calls
that
Sta
tes p
artie
s sho
uld
give
suffi
cien
t wei
ght t
o th
e re
al a
nd p
erso
nal r
isk
a pe
rson
mig
ht fa
ce if
dep
orte
d and
cons
ider
s tha
t it w
as in
cum
bent
upo
n th
e St
ate
part
y to
und
erta
ke
an in
divi
dual
ized
asse
ssm
ent o
f the
risk
that
the
auth
or a
nd h
er tw
o ch
ildre
n (b
oth
of w
hom
wer
e m
inor
dur
ing
the
asyl
um p
roce
edin
gs) w
ould
face
in It
aly
rath
er th
an re
ly o
n ge
nera
l rep
orts
and
on
the
assu
mpt
ion
that
as t
he a
utho
r had
ben
efite
d fr
om su
bsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
in th
e pa
st s
he w
ould
in
prin
cipl
e b
e en
title
d to
the
sam
e le
vel o
f sub
sidia
ry p
rote
ctio
n to
day
The
Com
mitt
ee c
onsid
ers t
hat t
he
Stat
e pa
rty
faile
d to
take
into
due
con
sider
atio
n th
e sp
ecia
l vul
nera
bilit
y of
the
auth
or a
nd h
er c
hild
ren
N
otw
ithst
andi
ng h
er fo
rmal
ent
itlem
ent t
o su
bsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
in It
aly
the
auth
or w
ho h
as b
een
seve
rely
mist
reat
ed b
y he
r spo
use
face
d gr
eat p
reca
rity
and
was
not
abl
e to
pro
vide
for h
erse
lf an
d he
r ch
ildre
n in
clud
ing
for t
heir
med
ical
nee
ds i
n th
e ab
senc
e of
any
ass
istan
ce fr
om th
e Ita
lian
auth
oriti
es
The
Stat
e pa
rty
has a
lso fa
iled
to se
ek e
ffect
ive
assu
ranc
es fr
om th
e Ita
lian
auth
oriti
es th
at th
e au
thor
an
d he
r tw
o ch
ildre
n w
ho a
re in
a p
artic
ular
ly v
ulne
rabl
e sit
uatio
n an
alog
ous t
o th
at e
ncou
nter
ed b
y th
e au
thor
in Ja
sin v
Den
mar
k (w
hich
also
invo
lved
the
plan
ned
depo
rtat
ion
of a
n un
heal
thy
singl
e m
othe
r w
ith m
inor
chi
ldre
n w
ho h
ad a
lread
y ex
perie
nced
ext
rem
e ha
rdsh
ip a
nd d
estit
utio
n in
Ital
y) w
ould
be
rece
ived
in c
ondi
tions
com
patib
le w
ith th
eir s
tatu
s as a
sylu
m se
eker
s ent
itled
to te
mpo
rary
pro
tect
ion
and
the
guar
ante
es u
nder
art
icle
7 o
f the
Cov
enan
t In
par
ticul
ar t
he S
tate
par
ty fa
iled
to re
ques
t Ita
ly
to u
nder
take
(a) t
o re
new
the
auth
orrsquos
resid
ence
per
mit
and
to is
sue
perm
its to
her
chi
ldre
n a
nd (b
) to
rece
ive
the
auth
or a
nd h
er c
hild
ren
in c
ondi
tions
ada
pted
to th
e ch
ildre
nrsquos a
ge a
nd th
e fa
mily
rsquos vu
lner
able
st
atus
whi
ch w
ould
ena
ble
them
to re
mai
n in
Ital
yrsquo
ECtH
R M
SS v
Bel
gium
an
d Gr
eece
[GC
] no
306
9609
21 Ja
nuary20
11
ECtH
R M
oham
med
Hu
ssei
n an
d O
ther
s v
the
Net
herla
nds
and
Italy
(dec
) no
277
25102 April
2013
ECtH
R Ta
rakh
el
v Sw
itzer
land
[GC]
no
292
171
2
4 Novem
ber2
014
Ms O
bah
Huss
ein
Ahm
ed v
Den
mar
k
no 237
920
147
July
2016
RAA
and
ZM
v De
nmar
k
no 260
820
15
28 Octob
er201
6
142 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Com
mitt
eeCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
dat
eRe
leva
nce
keyw
ords
key
rele
vant
par
agra
phs
Case
s cite
d
X v
Denm
ark
no
200
720
10
26 M
arch201
4
ARJ v
Aus
tral
ia
no 692
199
628 July
1997
X v
Swed
en
no 183
320
08
1 Novem
ber2
011
Lin
v Au
stra
lia
no 195
720
10
21 M
arch201
3
Erro
l Sim
ms v
Jam
aica
no
541
199
33 April
1995
War
da O
sman
Ja
sin v
Den
mar
k
no 236
020
142
2 July
2015
Abdi
lafir
Abu
baka
r Al
i et a
l v D
enm
ark
no
240
920
14
29 M
arch201
6
Pilla
i v C
anad
a
no 176
320
08
25 M
arch201
1
Oba
h Hu
ssei
n Ah
med
v D
enm
ark
no
237
920
147
July
2016
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 143
Com
mitt
eeCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
dat
eRe
leva
nce
keyw
ords
key
rele
vant
par
agra
phs
Case
s cite
d
Com
mitt
ee
on th
e Ri
ghts
of
the
Child
NBF
v S
pain
CRC
C79
D1
120
17
270
920
18
View
s ado
pted
by
the
Com
mitt
ee u
nder
the
Opt
iona
l Pro
toco
l to
the
Conv
entio
n on
the
Righ
ts o
f the
Chi
ld o
n acommun
icatio
nsprocedu
recon
cerningcommun
icatio
nno
112017
Dete
rmin
atio
n of
the
age
of a
n al
lege
d un
acco
mpa
nied
min
or -
Non-
exha
ustio
n of
dom
estic
rem
edie
s ab
use
of
the
right
of s
ubm
issio
n la
ck o
f sub
stan
tiatio
n of
the
com
plai
nt
Para
12
6
lsquo12
6 T
he S
tate
par
ty h
as ci
ted
the
case
of M
EB
v S
pain
as a
pre
cede
nt fo
r rel
ying
on
X-ra
y ev
iden
ce b
ased
on
the
Greu
lich
and
Pyle
atla
s Th
e Co
mm
ittee
not
es h
owev
er t
hat t
here
is a
mpl
e in
form
atio
n in
the
file
to
sugg
est t
hat t
his m
etho
d la
cks p
recis
ion
and
has a
wid
e m
argi
n of
err
or a
nd is
ther
efor
e no
t sui
tabl
e fo
r use
as
the
sole
met
hod
for d
eter
min
ing
the
chro
nolo
gica
l age
of a
youn
g pe
rson
who
clai
ms t
o be
a m
inor
rsquo
ECtH
R A
hmad
e v
Gree
cen
o 50
52009
25
Sep
tembe
r201
2
MEB
v S
pain
no
9201
72 Ju
ne201
7
RL v
Spa
inn
o 18
201
7
25 Ja
nuary20
18
Com
mitt
ee
Agai
nst
Tort
ure
Adam
Har
un
v Sw
itzer
land
CAT
C65
D7
582
016
061
220
18
Deci
sion
adop
ted
by th
e Co
mm
ittee
und
er a
rtic
le 2
2 of
the
Conv
entio
n c
once
rnin
g co
mm
unic
atio
n no
758
201
6
Depo
rtat
ion
to It
aly
- Fai
lure
to su
ffici
ently
subs
tant
iate
cla
ims
inad
miss
ibili
ty ra
tione
mat
eria
e - R
isk o
f to
rtur
e ri
ght t
o re
dres
s c
ruel
inh
uman
or d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t or p
unish
men
t
Para
91
1
lsquo91
1 T
he C
omm
ittee
also
not
es th
at th
e St
ate
part
y w
ithou
t hav
ing
anal
ysed
the
com
plai
nant
rsquos ex
perie
nce
in It
aly
to d
ate
sim
ply
stat
ed th
at It
aly
had
alre
ady
agre
ed to
read
mit
him
on
thre
e se
para
te
occa
sions
and
con
sider
ed th
at i
f nee
d be
the
com
plai
nant
cou
ld fi
le a
com
plai
nt a
gain
st th
e re
ceiv
ing
Stat
e in
the
even
t of v
iola
tion
of h
is rig
hts
In a
dditi
on t
he C
omm
ittee
not
es th
at a
t no
time
did
the
Stat
e pa
rty
take
acc
ount
of t
he fa
ct th
at It
aly
had
faile
d to
del
iver
on
the
assu
ranc
es th
at it
had
giv
en to
N
orw
ay w
hen
the
com
plai
nant
retu
rned
to th
e co
untr
y in
201
2 an
d th
at it
had
not
take
n an
y m
easu
res
to g
uara
ntee
him
acc
ess t
o re
habi
litat
ion
serv
ices
that
are
tailo
red
to h
is ne
eds
whi
ch w
ould
allo
w
him
to e
xerc
ise h
is rig
ht to
reha
bilit
atio
n as
a v
ictim
of t
ortu
re I
n lig
ht o
f the
fore
goin
g th
e Co
mm
ittee
co
nsid
ers t
hat t
he S
tate
par
ty h
as n
ot e
xam
ined
in a
n in
divi
dual
ized
and
suffi
cien
tly th
orou
gh m
anne
r the
co
mpl
aina
ntrsquos
pers
onal
exp
erie
nce
as a
vic
tim o
f tor
ture
and
the
fore
seea
ble
cons
eque
nces
of h
is fo
rced
re
turn
to It
aly
The
Com
mitt
ee is
ther
efor
e of
the
view
that
the
depo
rtat
ion
of th
e co
mpl
aina
nt to
Ital
y w
ould
con
stitu
te a
vio
latio
n of
art
icle
3 o
f the
Con
vent
ion
rsquo
ECtH
R Ta
rakh
el
v Sw
itzer
land
[GC]
no
292
171
2
4 Novem
ber2
014
ECtH
R N
v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m [G
C]
no 265
650527 May
2008
ECtH
R D
v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
mn
o 30
24096
2 May199
7
ECtH
R M
SS v
Bel
gium
an
d Gr
eece
[GC
] no
306
9609
21 Ja
nuary20
11
ECtH
R M
oham
med
Hu
ssei
n an
d O
ther
s v
the
Net
herla
nds
and
Italy
(dec
) no
277
25102 April
2013
144 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Com
mitt
eeCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
dat
eRe
leva
nce
keyw
ords
key
rele
vant
par
agra
phs
Case
s cite
d
ECtH
R A
S v
Switz
erla
nd
no 393
501330 June
20
15
ECtH
R N
aiumlt-L
iman
v
Switz
erla
nd
no 513
570721 June
20
16
ECtH
R P
apos
hvili
v
Belg
ium
no
417
3810
13 Decem
ber2
016
ECtH
R S
aadi
v It
aly
[GC]n
o 37
20106
28
Feb
ruary20
08
ECtH
R R
amzy
v
the
Net
herla
nds
no
254
240520 July
2010
CJEU
CK
and
Oth
ers
v Re
publ
ika
Slov
enija
C-
578
16 P
PU
16 Feb
ruary20
17
Hum
an R
ight
s Co
mm
ittee
W
arda
Osm
an
Jasin
v D
enm
ark
no
236
020
142
2 July
2015
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 145
Com
mitt
eeCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
dat
eRe
leva
nce
keyw
ords
key
rele
vant
par
agra
phs
Case
s cite
d
MM
K v
Swed
en
22120
023
May200
5
YGH
et a
l v A
ustr
alia
no
434
201
0
14 Novem
ber2
013
JB v
Sw
itzer
land
no
721
201
5
17 Novem
ber2
017
AN v
Sw
itzer
land
no
742
201
63Aug
ust
2018
146 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Case law websites for European institutions and Member StatesBelow is a list of the main websites with case-law on asylum and migration law for European institutions and EU Member States
bull Court of Justice of the European Union httpcuriaeuropaeujurisrecherchejsflanguage=enbull European Court of Human Rights httpshudocechrcoeintengbull EASO Information and Documentation System on Case Law httpscaselaweasoeuropaeuPages
defaultaspxbull UNHCR Refworld httpswwwrefworldorgcgi-bintexisvtxrwmain with advanced search at https
wwwrefworldorgcgi-bintexisvtxrwmainpage=searchampadvsearch=yampprocess=nbull Jurisprudence of the UN human rights bodies httpsjurisohchrorgsearchDocumentsbull European Council on Refugees and Exiles European Database of Asylum Law httpswww
asylumlawdatabaseeuenbull The European Commission maintains a list of links to national case-law sites at httpsbetae-justice
europaeu13ENnational_case_law
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU
In personAll over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres You can find the address of the centre nearest you at httpeuropaeucontact
On the phone or by emailEurope Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union You can contact this service ndash by freephone 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls)ndash at the following standard number +32 22999696 orndash by email via httpeuropaeucontact
FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU
OnlineInformation about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website at httpeuropaeu
EU publicationsYou can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop at httppublicationseuropaeu eubookshop Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see httpeuropaeucontact)
EU law and related documentsFor access to legal information from the EU including all EU law since 1952 in all the official language versions go to EUR-Lex at httpeur-lexeuropaeu
Open data from the EUThe EU Open Data Portal (httpdataeuropaeueuodp) provides access to datasets from the EU Data can be downloaded and reused for free both for commercial and non-commercial purposes
EASO professional development materials have been created in cooperation with members of courts and tribunals on the following topics
bull Introduction to the Common European Asylum System for courts and tribunalsbull Qualification for international protection (Directive 201195EU)bull Asylum procedures and the principle of non-refoulementbull Evidence and credibility assessment in the context of the Common European Asylum
Systembull Article 15(c) qualification directive (Directive 201195EU)bull Exclusion Articles 12 and 17 Qualification Directive (201195EU)bull Ending international protection Articles 11 14 16 and 19 Qualification Directive
(Directive 201195EU)bull Detention of applicants for international protection in the context of the Common
European Asylum Systembull Country of origin informationbull Reception of applicants for international protection (Reception Conditions Directive
201333EU)bull Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
The professional development series comprises judicial analyses judicial trainers guidance notes and compilations of jurisprudence for each topic covered apart from country of origin information which comprises a judicial practical guide accompanied by a compilation of jurisprudence All materials are developed in English For more information on publications including on the availability of different language versions please visit wwweasoeuropaeucourts-and-tribunals
Compilation of jurisprudence
Vulnerability in the context of applications
for international protection
Produced by IARMJ-Europe under contract to EASO
2021
EASO Professional Development Series for members of courts and tribunals
copy European Asylum Support Office 2021Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledgedFor any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the copyright of EASO permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders
Print ISBN 978-92-9476-631-1 doi102847903590 BZ-03-19-225-EN-C
PDF ISBN 978-92-9476-630-4 doi10284763941 BZ-03-19-225-EN-N
Manuscript completed in August 2020
Neither the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) nor any person acting on behalf of EASO is responsible for the use that might be made of the following information
Luxembourg Publications Office of the European Union 2021
Cover illustration baldyrgan copy Shutterstock
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 3
European Asylum Support OfficeEASO is an agency of the European Union that plays a key role in the concrete development of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) It was established with the aim of enhancing practical cooperation on asylum matters and helping Member States fulfil their European and international obligations to give protection to people in need
Article 6 of the EASO founding Regulation (1) (hereinafter the Regulation) specifies that the Agency shall establish and develop training available to members of courts and tribunals in the Member States For this purpose EASO shall take advantage of the expertise of academic institutions and other relevant organisations and take into account the Unionrsquos existing cooperation in the field with full respect to the independence of national courts and tribunals
International Association of Refugee and Migration JudgesThe International Association of Refugee and Migration Judges (IARMJ) (2) is a transnational non-profit association that seeks to foster recognition that protection from persecution on account of race religion nationality membership in a particular social group or political opinion is an individual right established under international law and that the determination of refugee status and its cessation should be subject to the rule of law Since the foundation of the association in 1997 it has been heavily involved in the training of judges around the world dealing with asylum cases The European Chapter of the IARMJ (IARMJ-Europe) is the regional representative body for judges within Europe One of the Chapterrsquos specific objectives under its Constitution is lsquoto enhance knowledge and skills and to exchange views and experiences of judges on all matters concerning the application and functioning of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS)rsquo
ContributorsThis compilation of jurisprudence has been developed by a process with two components an Editorial team (ET) of judges and tribunal members with overall responsibility for the final product and two researchers responsible for drafting
In order to ensure the integrity of the principle of judicial independence and that the EASO Professional development series for members of courts and tribunals is developed and delivered under judicial guidance an ET composed of serving judges and tribunal members with extensive experience and expertise in the field of asylum law was selected under the auspices of a Joint monitoring group (JMG) The JMG is composed of representatives of the contracting parties EASO and IARMJ-Europe The ET reviewed drafts gave detailed instructions to the drafting team drafted amendments and was the final decision-making body as to the scope structure content and design of the work The work of the ET was undertaken through regular electronictelephonic communication
Editorial team of judges and tribunal membersThe judges and tribunal members of the ET for this compilation of jurisprudence were Mona Aldestam (Sweden Co-Chair) Michael Hoppe (Germany Co-Chair) Johan Berg (Norway) Katelijne Declerck (Belgium) Nadine Finch (UK) Florence Malvasio (France) Melanie Plimmer (UK) and Boštjan Zalar (Slovenia) The ET was supported and assisted in its task by Project Coordination Manager Clara Odofin
(1) Regulation(EU)No4392010oftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilof19 May2010establishingaEuropeanAsylumSupportOffice [2010] OJ L 13211
(2) Formerly known as the International Association of Refugee Law Judges (IARLJ)
4 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
DraftersClaire Thomas (consultant) was the primary drafter along with Frances Nicholson (consultant) who provided editorial support
AcknowledgementsComments on the draft were received from Lars Bay Larsen a judge and Yann Laurans a legal secretary both of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and from the judge Jolien Schukking and the lawyers Elise Russcher and Agnes van Steijn of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in their personal capacities
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) also expressed its views on the draft text
Comments were also received from the following EASO Court and Tribunal Network members and the EASO Consultative Forum European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights Anders Bengtsson (legal expert Administrative Court in Gothenburg Sweden) Volker Ellenberger (President of the Higher Administrative Court of Baden-Wuumlrttemberg Germany) Jonas Saumlfwenberg (legal expert Administrative Court in Gothenburg Sweden) and Hugo Storey (Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) UK)
All these comments were taken into consideration by the ET in finalising the text for publication The members of the ET and EASO are grateful to all those who have made comments which have been very helpful in finalising this Compilation
This compilation of jurisprudence will be updated as necessary by EASO in accordance with the methodology for the EASO Professional development series for members of courts and tribunals
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 5
Compilation of jurisprudence ndash explanatory noteThe purpose of this Compilation of Jurisprudence is to be an accompanying resource to the Judicial analysis and to provide courts and tribunals in Member States with a helpful aid when hearing appeals or conducting reviews of decisions on applications concerning vulnerability
The cases in this Compilation are confined to those which have been named within the main body of text of the Judicial analysis Included in this Compilation is jurisprudence from
mdash European courts that is the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human rights (ECtHR)
mdash United Nations that is the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) the Committee Against Torture (CAT) and the Human Rights Committee (HRC)
Within these sections cases are listed in date order from the oldest to the most recent
All cases cited or otherwise mentioned in the footnotes of the Judicial analysis included all National cases can be found in Appendix B Primary Sources of the Judicial Analysis Further information on all cases can be found through the hyperlinks provided or via the list of websites provided at the end of this Compilation
6 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
t of J
ustic
e of
the
Euro
pean
Uni
on (C
JEU
)
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
(Gra
nd
Cham
ber
[GC]
)
Elga
faji
v St
aats
secr
etar
is v
an
Just
itie
C-46
507
EUC
200
994
170
220
09
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
15(
c) o
f Co
uncilD
irective20
0483EC
of2
9 Ap
ril200
4on
minim
umstan
dardsforth
equ
alificatio
nan
dstatusof
third
cou
ntry
nat
iona
ls or
stat
eles
s per
sons
as r
efug
ees o
r as p
erso
ns w
ho o
ther
wise
nee
d in
tern
atio
nal
prot
ectio
n an
d th
e co
nten
t of t
he p
rote
ctio
n gr
ante
d in
con
junc
tion
with
Art
icle
2(e
) of t
hat d
irect
ive
Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3EC
ndash M
inim
um st
anda
rds f
or d
eter
min
ing
who
qua
lifie
s for
refu
gee
stat
us o
r for
su
bsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
stat
us ndash
Per
son
elig
ible
for s
ubsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
ndash Ar
ticle
2(e
) ndash R
eal r
isk o
f suf
ferin
g se
rious
har
m ndash
Art
icle
15(
c) ndash
Ser
ious
and
indi
vidu
al th
reat
to a
civ
ilian
rsquos lif
e or
per
son
by re
ason
of
indi
scrim
inat
e vi
olen
ce in
situ
atio
ns o
f arm
ed c
onfli
ct
Para
s 3
8-39
lsquo38
The
exc
eptio
nal n
atur
e of
that
situ
atio
n is
also
con
firm
ed b
y th
e fa
ct th
at th
e re
leva
nt p
rote
ctio
n is
subs
idia
ry a
nd b
y th
e br
oad
logi
c of
Art
icle
15
of th
e Di
rect
ive
as t
he h
arm
def
ined
in p
arag
raph
s (a
) and
(b) o
f tha
t art
icle
requ
ires a
cle
ar d
egre
e of
indi
vidu
alisa
tion
Whi
le it
is a
dmitt
edly
true
that
co
llect
ive
fact
ors p
lay
a sig
nific
ant r
ole
in th
e ap
plic
atio
n of
Art
icle
15(
c) o
f the
Dire
ctiv
e in
that
the
pers
on c
once
rned
bel
ongs
lik
e ot
her p
eopl
e to
a c
ircle
of p
oten
tial v
ictim
s of i
ndisc
rimin
ate
viol
ence
in
situa
tions
of i
nter
natio
nal o
r int
erna
l arm
ed c
onfli
ct i
t is n
ever
thel
ess t
he c
ase
that
that
pro
visio
n m
ust
be su
bjec
t to
a co
here
nt in
terp
reta
tion
in re
latio
n to
the
othe
r tw
o sit
uatio
ns re
ferr
ed to
in A
rtic
le 1
5 of
th
e Di
rect
ive
and
mus
t th
eref
ore
be
inte
rpre
ted
by c
lose
refe
renc
e to
that
indi
vidu
alisa
tion
lsquo39
In
that
rega
rd t
he m
ore
the
appl
ican
t is a
ble
to sh
ow th
at h
e is
spec
ifica
lly a
ffect
ed b
y re
ason
of
fact
ors p
artic
ular
to h
is pe
rson
al c
ircum
stan
ces
the
low
er th
e le
vel o
f ind
iscrim
inat
e vi
olen
ce re
quire
d fo
r hi
m to
be
elig
ible
for s
ubsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
rsquo
Para
42
lsquo42
Acco
rdin
g to
sett
led
case
-law
in a
pply
ing
natio
nal l
aw w
heth
er th
e pr
ovisi
ons i
n qu
estio
n w
ere
adop
ted
befo
re o
r afte
r the
dire
ctiv
e th
e na
tiona
l cou
rt c
alle
d up
on to
inte
rpre
t it i
s req
uire
d to
do
so a
s fa
r as p
ossib
le i
n th
e lig
ht o
f the
wor
ding
and
the
purp
ose
of th
e di
rect
ive
in o
rder
to a
chie
ve th
e re
sult
purs
ued
by th
e la
tter
and
ther
eby
com
ply
with
the
third
par
agra
ph o
f Art
icle
249
EC
rsquo
Mar
le a
sing
C-1
068
9
13 Novem
ber1
990
Com
mun
e de
Mes
quer
C-1880724 June
2008
NA v
Uni
ted
King
dom
C-1151530 June
2016
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 7
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
Sam
ba D
iouf
v M
inist
re
du T
rava
il d
e lrsquoE
mpl
oi e
t de
lrsquoIm
mig
ratio
n
C-69
10
EUC
201
152
4
280
720
11
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
39
of C
ounc
il Directive20
0585EC
of1
Decem
ber2
005on
minim
umstan
dardso
nproced
uresin
Mem
berS
tatesfor
gran
ting
and
with
draw
ing
refu
gee
stat
us
Dire
ctiv
e 20
058
5EC
ndash M
inim
um st
anda
rds o
n pr
oced
ures
in M
embe
r Sta
tes f
or g
rant
ing
and
with
draw
ing
refu
gee
stat
us ndash
lsquoDec
ision
take
n on
[the
] app
licat
ion
for a
sylu
mrsquo w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of
Artic
le 3
9 of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
058
5 ndash
Appl
icat
ion
by a
third
cou
ntry
nat
iona
l for
refu
gee
stat
us ndash
Fai
lure
to
pro
vide
reas
ons j
ustif
ying
the
gran
t of i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n ndash
Appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
und
er a
n ac
cele
rate
d pr
oced
ure
ndash N
o re
med
y ag
ains
t the
dec
ision
to d
eal w
ith th
e ap
plic
atio
n un
der a
n ac
cele
rate
d pr
oced
ure
ndash Ri
ght t
o ef
fect
ive
judi
cial
revi
ew
Para
s 6
5-68
lsquo65
In th
at re
gard
it m
ust b
e st
ated
at t
he o
utse
t tha
t the
diff
eren
ces t
hat e
xist
in
the
natio
nal r
ules
be
twee
n th
e ac
cele
rate
d pr
oced
ure
and
the
ordi
nary
pro
cedu
re t
he e
ffect
of w
hich
is th
at th
e tim
e-lim
it fo
r brin
ging
an
actio
n is
shor
tene
d an
d th
at th
ere
is on
ly o
ne le
vel o
f jur
isdic
tion
are
con
nect
ed w
ith th
e na
ture
of t
he p
roce
dure
put
in p
lace
The
pro
visio
ns a
t iss
ue in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s are
inte
nded
to
ensu
re th
at u
nfou
nded
or i
nadm
issib
le a
pplic
atio
ns fo
r asy
lum
are
pro
cess
ed m
ore
quic
kly
in o
rder
that
ap
plic
atio
ns su
bmitt
ed b
y pe
rson
s who
hav
e go
od g
roun
ds fo
r ben
efiti
ng fr
om re
fuge
e st
atus
may
be
proc
esse
d m
ore
effic
ient
ly
lsquo66
As r
egar
ds th
e fa
ct th
at th
e tim
e-lim
it fo
r brin
ging
an
actio
n is
15 d
ays i
n th
e ca
se o
f an
acce
lera
ted
proc
edur
e w
hilst
it is
1 m
onth
in th
e ca
se o
f a d
ecisi
on a
dopt
ed u
nder
the
ordi
nary
pro
cedu
re t
he
impo
rtan
t poi
nt a
s the
Adv
ocat
e Ge
nera
l has
stat
ed in
poi
nt 6
3 of
his
Opi
nion
is t
hat t
he p
erio
d pr
escr
ibed
mus
t be
suffi
cien
t in
prac
tical
term
s to
enab
le th
e ap
plic
ant t
o pr
epar
e an
d br
ing
an e
ffect
ive
actio
n
lsquo67
With
rega
rd to
abb
revi
ated
pro
cedu
res
a 1
5-da
y tim
e lim
it fo
r brin
ging
an
actio
n do
es n
ot se
em
gene
rally
to
be in
suffi
cien
t in
prac
tical
term
s to
prep
are
and
brin
g an
effe
ctiv
e ac
tion
and
appe
ars
reas
onab
le a
nd p
ropo
rtio
nate
in re
latio
n to
the
right
s and
inte
rest
s inv
olve
d
lsquo68
It is
how
ever
for
the
natio
nal c
ourt
to d
eter
min
e ndash
shou
ld th
at ti
me-
limit
prov
e in
a g
iven
situ
atio
n
to b
e in
suffi
cien
t in
view
of t
he c
ircum
stan
ces ndash
whe
ther
that
ele
men
t is s
uch
as to
just
ify o
n its
ow
n
upho
ldin
g th
e ac
tion
brou
ght i
ndire
ctly
aga
inst
the
deci
sion
to e
xam
ine
the
appl
icat
ion
for a
sylu
m u
nder
an
acc
eler
ated
pro
cedu
re s
o th
at i
n up
hold
ing
the
actio
n th
e na
tiona
l cou
rt w
ould
ord
er th
at th
e ap
plic
atio
n be
exa
min
ed u
nder
the
ordi
nary
pro
cedu
rersquo
DEB
C-2
790
9
22 Decem
ber2
010
Char
try
C-4
570
9
1 March2011
Safa
lero
C-1
301
11 Sep
tembe
r2003
Wils
on C
-506
04
19 Sep
tembe
r2006
Ange
lidak
i and
Oth
ers
join
ed ca
ses C
-378
07
to
3800723 Ap
ril2009
Impa
ct C
-268
06
15 April2
008
8 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
[GC]
NS
v Se
cret
ary
of
Stat
e fo
r the
Hom
e De
part
men
t and
M
E an
d O
ther
s v
Refu
gee
Appl
icat
ions
Co
mm
issi
oner
and
M
inist
er fo
r Jus
tice
Eq
ualit
y an
d La
w R
efor
m
C-41
110
and
C-4
931
0
EUC
201
186
5
211
220
11
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n fi
rst
of A
rtic
le 3
(2) o
f Co
uncilR
egulation(EC)No34
320
03of1
8 Februa
ry200
3establish
ingthecrite
riaand
mecha
nism
sfor
dete
rmin
ing
the
Mem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
le fo
r exa
min
ing
an a
sylu
m a
pplic
atio
n lo
dged
in o
ne o
f the
M
embe
r Sta
tes b
y a
third
-cou
ntry
nat
iona
l and
sec
ond
the
fund
amen
tal r
ight
s of t
he E
urop
ean
Uni
on
and
third
Pro
toco
l (N
o 30
) on
the
appl
icat
ion
of th
e Ch
arte
r to
Pola
nd a
nd to
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
Euro
pean
Uni
on la
w ndash
Prin
cipl
es ndash
Fun
dam
enta
l rig
hts ndash
Impl
emen
tatio
n of
Eur
opea
n U
nion
law
ndash
Proh
ibiti
on o
f inh
uman
or d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t ndash C
omm
on E
urop
ean
Asyl
um S
yste
m ndash
Reg
ulat
ion
(EC)
N
o 34
320
03 ndash
Con
cept
of lsquo
safe
cou
ntrie
srsquo ndash
Tra
nsfe
r of a
n as
ylum
seek
er to
the
Mem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
le
ndash O
blig
atio
n ndash
Rebu
ttab
le p
resu
mpt
ion
of c
ompl
ianc
e b
y th
at M
embe
r Sta
te w
ith fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts
Para
77
lsquo77
Acc
ordi
ng to
sett
led
case
-law
the
Mem
ber S
tate
s mus
t not
onl
y in
terp
ret t
heir
natio
nal l
aw in
a
man
ner c
onsis
tent
with
Eur
opea
n U
nion
law
but
also
mak
e su
re th
ey d
o no
t rel
y on
an
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
an
inst
rum
ent o
f sec
onda
ry le
gisla
tion
whi
ch w
ould
be
in c
onfli
ct w
ith th
e fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts p
rote
cted
by
the
Euro
pean
Uni
on le
gal o
rder
or w
ith th
e ot
her g
ener
al p
rinci
ples
of E
urop
ean
Uni
on la
wrsquo
Para
94
lsquo94
It fo
llow
s fro
m th
e fo
rego
ing
that
in si
tuat
ions
such
as t
hat a
t iss
ue in
the
case
s in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s to
ens
ure
com
plia
nce
by th
e Eu
rope
an U
nion
and
its M
embe
r Sta
tes w
ith th
eir o
blig
atio
ns
conc
erni
ng th
e pr
otec
tion
of th
e fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts o
f asy
lum
seek
ers
the
Mem
ber S
tate
s in
clud
ing
the
natio
nal c
ourt
s m
ay n
ot tr
ansf
er a
n as
ylum
seek
er to
the
lsquoMem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
lersquo w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of
Reg
ulat
ion
No
343
2003
whe
re th
ey c
anno
t be
unaw
are
that
syst
emic
def
icie
ncie
s in
the
asyl
um
proc
edur
e an
d in
the
rece
ptio
n co
nditi
ons o
f asy
lum
seek
ers i
n th
at M
embe
r Sta
te a
mou
nt to
subs
tant
ial
grou
nds f
or b
elie
ving
that
the
asyl
um se
eker
wou
ld fa
ce a
real
risk
of b
eing
subj
ecte
d to
inhu
man
or
degr
adin
g tr
eatm
ent w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
errsquo
Para
98
lsquo98
The
Mem
ber S
tate
in w
hich
the
asyl
um se
eker
is p
rese
nt m
ust
how
ever
ens
ure
that
it d
oes
not w
orse
n a
situa
tion
whe
re th
e fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts o
f tha
t app
lican
t hav
e be
en in
frin
ged
by u
sing
a pr
oced
ure
for d
eter
min
ing
the
Mem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
le w
hich
take
s an
unre
ason
able
leng
th o
f tim
e
If ne
cess
ary
that
Mem
ber S
tate
mus
t its
elf e
xam
ine
the
appl
icat
ion
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith th
e pr
oced
ure
laid
do
wn
in A
rtic
le 3
(2) o
f Reg
ulat
ion
No
343
2003
rsquo
Wac
haufC-58813 July
1989
Chak
roun
C-5
780
8
4 March2010
McB
C-4
001
0
5 Octob
er2010
ERTC-2608918 June
19
91
Sala
hadi
n Ab
dulla
and
O
ther
s jo
ined
case
s C-
175
08 C
-176
08
C-
178
08 a
nd C
-179
08
2 March2010
Bolb
olC-310917 June
20
10
Lindq
vist
C-1
010
1
6 No
vembe
r2003
Ord
re d
es b
arre
aux
franc
opho
nes e
t ge
rman
opho
ne a
nd
Oth
ers
C-30
505
26 Ju
ne2007
ECtH
R M
SS v
Bel
gium
an
d Gr
eece
[GC
] no
306960921 Janu
ary
2011
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 9
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
99
lsquo99
It fo
llow
s fro
m a
ll of
the
fore
goin
g co
nsid
erat
ions
that
as s
tate
d by
the
Advo
cate
Gen
eral
in
para
grap
h 13
1 of
her
Opi
nion
an
appl
icat
ion
of R
egul
atio
n N
o 34
320
03 o
n th
e ba
sis o
f the
con
clus
ive
pres
umpt
ion
that
the
asyl
um se
eker
rsquos fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts w
ill b
e ob
serv
ed in
the
Mem
ber S
tate
prim
arily
re
spon
sible
for h
is ap
plic
atio
n is
inco
mpa
tible
with
the
duty
of t
he M
embe
r Sta
tes t
o in
terp
ret a
nd a
pply
Re
gula
tion
No
343
2003
in a
man
ner c
onsis
tent
with
fund
amen
tal r
ight
srsquo
ECtH
R K
RS v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(dec
) no
3273308
2 De
cembe
r2008
CJEU
Bund
esre
publ
ik
Deut
schl
and
v Y
and
Z
C-71
11
and
C-99
11
EUC
201
251
8
050
920
12
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
s 2(c
) and
9(1)(a)o
fCou
ncilDirective20
0483EC
of2
9 Ap
ril200
4on
minim
umstan
dardsforth
equ
alificatio
nan
d st
atus
of t
hird
cou
ntry
nat
iona
ls or
Sta
tele
ss p
erso
ns a
s ref
ugee
s or a
s per
sons
who
oth
erw
ise n
eed
inte
rnat
iona
l pro
tect
ion
and
the
cont
ent o
f the
pro
tect
ion
gran
ted
Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3EC
ndash M
inim
um st
anda
rds f
or d
eter
min
ing
who
qua
lifie
s for
refu
gee
stat
us o
r for
su
bsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
stat
us ndash
Cla
ssifi
catio
n as
a lsquor
efug
eersquondash
Def
initi
on o
f lsquoac
ts o
f per
secu
tionrsquo
ndashndash
Relig
ion
as g
roun
d fo
r per
secu
tion
ndash Ac
ts b
y th
e Pa
kist
ani a
utho
ritie
s des
igne
d to
pro
hibi
t the
man
ifest
atio
n of
a
pers
onrsquos
relig
ion
in p
ublic
ndash w
ell-f
ound
ed fe
ar o
f bei
ng p
erse
cute
d on
acc
ount
of h
is re
ligio
n
Para
70
lsquo70
In a
sses
sing
such
a ri
sk t
he c
ompe
tent
aut
horit
ies m
ust t
ake
acco
unt o
f a n
umbe
r of f
acto
rs b
oth
obje
ctiv
e an
d su
bjec
tive
The
subj
ectiv
e ci
rcum
stan
ce th
at th
e ob
serv
ance
of a
cer
tain
relig
ious
pra
ctic
e in
pub
lic w
hich
is su
bjec
t to
the
rest
rictio
ns a
t iss
ue i
s of p
artic
ular
impo
rtan
ce to
the
pers
on c
once
rned
in
ord
er to
pre
serv
e hi
s rel
igio
us id
entit
y is
a re
leva
nt fa
ctor
to b
e ta
ken
into
acc
ount
in d
eter
min
ing
the
leve
l of r
isk to
whi
ch th
e ap
plic
ant w
ill b
e ex
pose
d in
his
coun
try
of o
rigin
on
acco
unt o
f his
relig
ion
eve
n if
the
obse
rvan
ce o
f suc
h a
relig
ious
pra
ctic
e do
es n
ot c
onst
itute
a c
ore
elem
ent o
f fai
th fo
r the
relig
ious
co
mm
unity
con
cern
edrsquo
Sala
hadi
n Ab
dulla
and
O
ther
s jo
ined
Cas
es
C-17
508
C-1
760
8
C-17
808
and
C-1
790
8
2 March2010
Bolb
olC-310917 June
20
10
NS v
Sec
reta
ry o
f St
ate
for t
he H
ome
Depa
rtm
ent a
nd
ME
and
Oth
ers
v Re
fuge
e Ap
plica
tions
Co
mm
issio
ner a
nd
Min
ister
for J
ustic
e
Equa
lity
and
Law
Re
form
joi
ned
Case
s C-
411
10 a
nd C
-493
10
21 Decem
ber2
011
10 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
Cim
ade
and
Gro
upe
drsquoin
form
atio
n et
de
sout
ien
des i
mm
igreacute
s (G
ISTI
) v M
inist
re d
e lrsquoi
nteacuter
ieur
de
lrsquoout
re-
mer
des
colle
ctiv
iteacutes
terr
itoria
les e
t de
lrsquoim
mig
ratio
n
C-17
911
EUC
201
259
4
270
920
12
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Cou
ncil
Dire
ctiv
e 20
039ECof27 Janu
ary20
03laying
dow
nminim
umstan
dardsforth
ereceptionofasylumse
ekersinthe
Mem
ber S
tate
s
Appl
icat
ions
for a
sylu
m ndash
Dire
ctiv
e 20
039
EC
ndash M
inim
um st
anda
rds f
or th
e re
cept
ion
of a
sylu
m se
eker
s in
the
Mem
ber S
tate
s ndash R
egul
atio
n (E
C) N
o 34
320
03 ndash
Obl
igat
ion
to g
uara
ntee
asy
lum
seek
ers m
inim
um
rece
ptio
n co
nditi
ons d
urin
g th
e pr
oced
ure
of ta
king
cha
rge
or ta
king
bac
k by
the
resp
onsib
le M
embe
r St
ate
ndash De
term
inin
g th
e M
embe
r Sta
te o
blig
ed to
ass
ume
the
finan
cial
bur
den
of th
e m
inim
um c
ondi
tions
Para
52
lsquo52
With
rega
rd to
the
dura
tion
of th
e ob
ligat
ion
to g
rant
the
min
imum
rece
ptio
n co
nditi
ons
it sh
ould
be
reca
lled
firs
t as
was
stat
ed in
par
agra
phs 3
6 an
d 37
abo
ve t
hat t
he p
erso
nal s
cope
of D
irect
ive
2003
9 e
ncom
pass
es a
ny a
sylu
m se
eker
who
has
lodg
ed a
n ap
plic
atio
n fo
r asy
lum
for t
he fi
rst t
ime
with
a
Mem
ber S
tate
rsquo
Para
54
lsquo54
Thi
rd i
t fol
low
s fro
m A
rtic
les 1
7 to
19
of R
egul
atio
n N
o 34
320
03 th
at th
e m
ere
requ
est b
y a
Mem
ber S
tate
in re
ceip
t of a
n ap
plic
atio
n fo
r asy
lum
for t
he ta
king
cha
rge
of th
e ap
plic
ant c
once
rned
by
ano
ther
Mem
ber S
tate
doe
s not
brin
g th
e ex
amin
atio
n of
the
appl
icat
ion
for a
sylu
m b
y th
e re
ques
ting
Mem
ber S
tate
to a
n en
d E
ven
whe
re th
e re
ques
ted
Mem
ber S
tate
acc
epts
that
taki
ng c
harg
e th
e fa
ct
neve
rthe
less
rem
ains
that
in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith A
rtic
le 1
9(4)
of R
egul
atio
n N
o 34
320
03 t
he re
spon
sibili
ty
for t
he e
xam
inat
ion
of th
e ap
plic
atio
n fo
r asy
lum
falls
to th
e M
embe
r Sta
te w
ith w
hich
that
app
licat
ion
was
lodg
ed i
f the
tran
sfer
is n
ot c
arrie
d ou
t with
in th
e six
-mon
th p
erio
d F
urth
erm
ore
as s
tate
d in
pa
ragr
aph
44 a
bove
whe
re th
e re
ques
ted
Mem
ber S
tate
repl
ies i
n th
e ne
gativ
e th
e le
gisla
tion
in
ques
tion
prov
ides
onl
y fo
r a v
olun
tary
con
cilia
tion
proc
edur
e an
d in
such
a c
ase
it c
anno
t be
excl
uded
th
at th
e as
ylum
seek
er w
ill re
mai
n in
the
terr
itory
of t
he re
ques
ting
Mem
ber S
tate
rsquo
Para
56
lsquo56
In a
dditi
on f
urth
er to
the
gene
ral s
chem
e an
d pu
rpos
e of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
039
and
the
obse
rvan
ce o
f fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts
in p
artic
ular
the
requ
irem
ents
of A
rtic
le 1
of t
he C
hart
er u
nder
whi
ch h
uman
dig
nity
m
ust b
e re
spec
ted
and
prot
ecte
d th
e as
ylum
seek
er m
ay n
ot a
s sta
ted
in p
arag
raph
s 41
to 4
4 ab
ove
be
depr
ived
ndash e
ven
for a
tem
pora
ry p
erio
d of
tim
e af
ter t
he m
akin
g of
the
appl
icat
ion
for a
sylu
m a
nd b
efor
e be
ing
actu
ally
tran
sfer
red
to th
e re
spon
sible
Mem
ber S
tate
ndash o
f the
pro
tect
ion
of th
e m
inim
um st
anda
rds
laid
dow
n by
that
dire
ctiv
ersquo
None
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 11
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
61
lsquo61
Acc
ordi
ngly
the
answ
er to
the
seco
nd q
uest
ion
is th
at th
e ob
ligat
ion
on a
Mem
ber S
tate
in re
ceip
t of
an
appl
icat
ion
for a
sylu
m to
gra
nt th
e m
inim
um re
cept
ion
cond
ition
s lai
d do
wn
in D
irect
ive
2003
9
to a
n as
ylum
seek
er in
resp
ect o
f who
m it
dec
ides
und
er R
egul
atio
n N
o 34
320
03 t
o ca
ll up
on a
noth
er
Mem
ber S
tate
as t
he M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
for e
xam
inin
g hi
s app
licat
ion
for a
sylu
m t
o ta
ke c
harg
e of
or t
ake
back
that
app
lican
t ce
ases
whe
n th
at sa
me
appl
ican
t is a
ctua
lly tr
ansf
erre
d by
the
requ
estin
g M
embe
r Sta
te a
nd th
e fin
anci
al b
urde
n of
gra
ntin
g th
ose
min
imum
con
ditio
ns is
to b
e as
sum
ed b
y th
at
requ
estin
g M
embe
r Sta
te w
hich
is su
bjec
t to
that
obl
igat
ion
rsquo
CJEU
The
Que
en o
n th
e ap
plic
atio
n of
MA
and
Oth
ers v
Sec
reta
ry o
f St
ate
for t
he H
ome
Depa
rtm
ent
C-64
811
EUC
201
336
7
060
620
13
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g un
der A
rtic
le 2
67 T
FEU
from
the
Cour
t of A
ppea
l (E
ngla
nd a
nd W
ales
) (Ci
vil D
ivisi
on) (
Uni
ted
King
dom
) co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
the
seco
nd
paragrap
hofArticle6ofC
ouncilRe
gulatio
n(EC)No34
320
03of1
8 Februa
ry200
3establish
ingthe
crite
ria a
nd m
echa
nism
s for
det
erm
inin
g th
e M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
for e
xam
inin
g an
asy
lum
ap
plic
atio
n lo
dged
in o
ne o
f the
Mem
ber S
tate
s by
a th
ird-c
ount
ry n
atio
nal
Regu
latio
n (E
C) N
o 34
320
03 ndash
Det
erm
inin
g th
e M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
ndash U
nacc
ompa
nied
min
or ndash
Su
cces
sive
appl
icat
ions
lodg
ed in
two
Mem
ber S
tate
s ndash A
bsen
ce o
f a m
embe
r of t
he fa
mily
of t
he m
inor
in
the
terr
itory
of a
Mem
ber S
tate
ndash T
rans
fer o
f the
min
or to
the
Mem
ber S
tate
in w
hich
he
lodg
ed h
is fir
st
appl
icat
ion
ndash Co
mpa
tibili
ty ndash
Chi
ldrsquos
best
inte
rest
s
Para
57
lsquo57
Tho
se fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts i
nclu
de i
n pa
rtic
ular
tha
t set
out
in A
rtic
le 2
4(2)
of t
he C
hart
er w
here
by in
al
l act
ions
rela
ting
to c
hild
ren
whe
ther
take
n by
pub
lic a
utho
ritie
s or p
rivat
e in
stitu
tions
the
chi
ldrsquos
best
in
tere
sts a
re to
be
a pr
imar
y co
nsid
erat
ion
rsquo
Djab
ali
C-31
496
12 M
arch1998
Garc
iacutea B
lanc
o C
-225
02
20 Janu
ary2005
Unioacute
de
Page
sos d
e Ca
talu
nya
C-1
971
0
15 Sep
tembe
r2011
Rose
nbla
dt C
-45
09
12 Octob
er2010
Mig
ratio
nsve
rket
v
Edga
r Pet
rosia
n an
d O
ther
s C-
190
8
29 Janu
ary2009
Detiček
C-40
309
23 Decem
ber2
009
McB
C-
400
10
5 Octob
er2010
12 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
Min
ister
voo
r Im
mig
ratie
en
Asi
el v
X Y
and
Z v
M
inist
er v
oor I
mm
igra
tie
en A
siel
Join
ed c
ases
C-1
991
2 to
C-
201
12
EUC
201
372
0
071
120
13
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
conc
erni
ng th
e in
terp
reta
tion
of A
rtic
le 9
(1)(a
) of C
ounc
il Directive20
0483EC
of2
9 Ap
ril200
4on
minim
umstan
dardsforth
equ
alificatio
nan
dstatusofthird-
coun
try
natio
nals
or S
tate
less
per
sons
as r
efug
ees o
r as p
erso
ns w
ho o
ther
wise
nee
d in
tern
atio
nal
prot
ectio
n an
d th
e co
nten
t of t
he p
rote
ctio
n gr
ante
d re
ad in
con
junc
tion
with
Art
icle
9(2
)(c) a
nd A
rtic
le
10(1
)(d) t
here
of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3EC
ndash M
inim
um st
anda
rds r
elat
ing
to th
e co
nditi
ons f
or g
rant
ing
refu
gee
stat
us o
r su
bsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
stat
us ndash
Mem
bers
hip
of a
par
ticul
ar so
cial
gro
up ndash
Sex
ual o
rient
atio
n ndash
Conc
ept o
f lsquop
erse
cutio
nrsquo ndash
pers
ecut
ed o
n ac
coun
t of m
embe
rshi
p of
a p
artic
ular
soci
al g
roup
Para
40
lsquo40
The
Dire
ctiv
e m
ust
for t
hat r
easo
n b
e in
terp
rete
d in
the
light
of i
ts g
ener
al sc
hem
e an
d pu
rpos
e a
nd
in a
man
ner c
onsis
tent
with
the
Gene
va C
onve
ntio
n an
d th
e ot
her r
elev
ant t
reat
ies r
efer
red
to in
Art
icle
78
(1) T
FEU
As i
s app
aren
t fro
m re
cita
l 10
in th
e pr
eam
ble
ther
eto
the
dire
ctiv
e m
ust a
lso b
e in
terp
rete
d in
a m
anne
r con
siste
nt w
ith th
e rig
hts r
ecog
nise
d by
the
Char
terrsquo
Para
s 5
3-54
lsquo53
It i
s cle
ar fr
om th
ose
prov
ision
s tha
t fo
r a v
iola
tion
of fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts t
o co
nstit
ute
pers
ecut
ion
with
in th
e m
eani
ng o
f Art
icle
1(A
) of t
he G
enev
a Co
nven
tion
it m
ust b
e su
ffici
ently
serio
us T
here
fore
no
t all
viol
atio
ns o
f fun
dam
enta
l rig
hts s
uffe
red
by a
hom
osex
ual a
sylu
m se
eker
will
nec
essa
rily
reac
h th
at
leve
l of s
erio
usne
ss
lsquo54
In th
at c
onne
ctio
n it
mus
t be
stat
ed a
t the
out
set t
hat t
he fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts s
peci
fical
ly li
nked
to
the
sexu
al o
rient
atio
n co
ncer
ned
in e
ach
of th
e ca
ses i
n th
e m
ain
proc
eedi
ngs
such
as t
he ri
ght t
o re
spec
t fo
r priv
ate
and
fam
ily li
fe w
hich
is p
rote
cted
by
Artic
le 8
of t
he E
CHR
to w
hich
Art
icle
7 o
f the
Cha
rter
co
rres
pond
s re
ad to
geth
er w
here
nec
essa
ry w
ith A
rtic
le 1
4 EC
HR o
n w
hich
Art
icle
21(
1) o
f the
Cha
rter
is
base
d is
not
am
ong
the
fund
amen
tal h
uman
righ
ts fr
om w
hich
no
dero
gatio
n is
poss
ible
rsquo
Para
s 5
6-57
lsquo56
How
ever
the
term
of i
mpr
isonm
ent w
hich
acc
ompa
nies
a le
gisla
tive
prov
ision
whi
ch l
ike
thos
e at
iss
ue in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s p
unish
es h
omos
exua
l act
s is c
apab
le i
n its
elf o
f con
stitu
ting
an a
ct o
f pe
rsec
utio
n w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 9
(1) o
f the
Dire
ctiv
e p
rovi
ded
that
it is
act
ually
app
lied
in th
e co
untr
y of
orig
in w
hich
ado
pted
such
legi
slatio
n
Y an
d Z
join
ed ca
ses
C-71
11
and
C-99
11
5 Septem
ber2
012
Abed
El K
arem
El K
ott
and
Oth
ers
C-36
411
19 Decem
ber2
012
Sala
hadi
n Ab
dulla
and
O
ther
s jo
ined
case
s C-
175
08 C
-176
08
C-
178
08 a
nd C
-179
08
2 March2010
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 13
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo57
Suc
h a
sanc
tion
infr
inge
s Art
icle
8 E
CHR
to w
hich
Art
icle
7 o
f the
Cha
rter
cor
resp
onds
and
co
nstit
utes
pun
ishm
ent w
hich
is d
ispro
port
iona
te o
r disc
rimin
ator
y w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 9
(2)(c
) of
the
Dire
ctiv
ersquo
Para
s 6
3-64
lsquo63
In o
rder
to a
nsw
er th
at q
uest
ion
that
the
refe
rrin
g co
urt h
as d
ivid
ed in
to se
vera
l par
ts i
t mus
t be
obse
rved
that
it re
fers
to a
situ
atio
n in
whi
ch a
s in
the
case
s in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s th
e ap
plic
ant
has n
ot sh
own
that
he
has a
lread
y be
en p
erse
cute
d or
has
alre
ady
been
subj
ect t
o di
rect
thre
ats o
f pe
rsec
utio
n on
acc
ount
of h
is m
embe
rshi
p of
a p
artic
ular
soci
al g
roup
who
se m
embe
rs sh
are
the
sam
e se
xual
orie
ntat
ion
lsquo64
The
lack
of s
uch
a se
rious
indi
catio
n of
a w
ell-f
ound
ed fe
ar o
n th
e pa
rt o
f the
app
lican
ts w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 4
(4) o
f the
Dire
ctiv
e e
xpla
ins t
he re
ferr
ing
cour
trsquos n
eed
to k
now
to w
hat e
xten
t it m
ay
be o
pen
to it
whe
re a
n ap
plic
ant c
anno
t bas
e hi
s fea
r on
pers
ecut
ion
alre
ady
suffe
red
on a
ccou
nt o
f hi
s mem
bers
hip
of th
at g
roup
to
requ
ire th
at o
n re
turn
to h
is co
untr
y of
orig
in h
e sh
ould
con
tinue
to
avoi
d th
e ris
k of
per
secu
tion
by c
once
alin
g hi
s hom
osex
ualit
y or
at t
he v
ery
leas
t th
at h
e sh
ould
exe
rcise
re
stra
int i
n ex
pres
sing
his s
exua
l orie
ntat
ion
rsquo
CJEU
Fede
ral a
gent
shap
vo
or d
e op
vang
van
as
ielzo
eker
s v S
elve
r Sa
ciri
Dan
ijela
Dor
devi
c
Danj
el S
aciri
San
ela
Saci
ri D
enis
Sac
iri
Ope
nbaa
r Cen
trum
voo
r M
aats
chap
pelij
k W
elzi
jn
van
Dies
t
C-79
13
EUC
201
410
3
270
220
14
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ns th
e in
terp
reta
tion
of A
rtic
le 1
3(5)
of C
ounc
il Directive20
039ECof27 Janu
ary20
03laying
dow
nminim
umstan
dardsforth
ereceptionofasylum
seek
ers
Dire
ctiv
e 20
039
EC
ndash M
inim
um st
anda
rds f
or th
e re
cept
ion
of a
sylu
m se
eker
s in
the
Mem
ber S
tate
s ndash
Tim
e-lim
its fo
r mat
eria
l rec
eptio
n co
nditi
ons ndash
Pro
visio
ns o
n m
ater
ial r
ecep
tion
cond
ition
s ndash G
uara
ntee
s ndash
Sett
ing
and
gran
t of m
inim
um re
cept
ion
cond
ition
s for
asy
lum
seek
ers ndash
Size
of t
he a
id g
rant
ed
Para
34
lsquo34
It is
app
aren
t fro
m th
e ve
ry te
rms o
f Art
icle
13(
1) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
039
that
the
mat
eria
l rec
eptio
n co
nditi
ons m
ust b
e av
aila
ble
to a
sylu
m se
eker
s w
heth
er p
rovi
ded
in k
ind
or in
the
form
of f
inan
cial
al
low
ance
s w
hen
they
mak
e th
eir a
pplic
atio
n fo
r asy
lum
rsquo
Para
41
lsquo41
It fo
llow
s the
refr
om th
at a
lthou
gh th
e am
ount
of t
he fi
nanc
ial a
id g
rant
ed is
to b
e de
term
ined
by
each
Mem
ber S
tate
it m
ust b
e su
ffici
ent t
o en
sure
a d
igni
fied
stan
dard
of l
ivin
g an
d ad
equa
te fo
r the
he
alth
of a
pplic
ants
and
cap
able
of e
nsur
ing
thei
r sub
siste
nce
rsquo
Cim
ade
and
GIST
I C-1791127 Septem
ber
2012
14 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
42
lsquo42
In th
e co
ntex
t of s
ettin
g th
e m
ater
ial r
ecep
tion
cond
ition
s in
the
form
of f
inan
cial
allo
wan
ces
pu
rsua
nt to
the
seco
nd su
bpar
agra
ph o
f Art
icle
13(
2) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
039
the
Mem
ber S
tate
s are
requ
ired
to a
djus
t the
rece
ptio
n co
nditi
ons t
o th
e sit
uatio
n of
per
sons
hav
ing
spec
ific
need
s a
s ref
erre
d to
in
Artic
le 1
7 of
the
dire
ctiv
e A
ccor
ding
ly th
e fin
anci
al a
llow
ance
s mus
t be
suffi
cien
t to
pres
erve
fam
ily u
nity
an
d th
e be
st in
tere
sts o
f the
chi
ld w
hich
pur
suan
t to
Artic
le 1
8(1)
are
to b
e a
prim
ary
cons
ider
atio
nrsquo
Para
45
lsquo45
How
ever
alth
ough
Art
icle
14(
3) o
f tha
t dire
ctiv
e do
es n
ot a
pply
whe
re th
e m
ater
ial r
ecep
tion
cond
ition
s are
pro
vide
d ex
clus
ivel
y in
the
form
of f
inan
cial
allo
wan
ces
the
fact
rem
ains
that
thos
e al
low
ance
s mus
t ena
ble
if n
eces
sary
min
or c
hild
ren
of a
sylu
m se
eker
s to
be h
ouse
d w
ith th
eir p
aren
ts
so th
at th
e fa
mily
uni
ty a
s ref
erre
d to
in p
arag
raph
41
of th
e pr
esen
t jud
gmen
t is
mai
ntai
ned
rsquo
Para
48
lsquo48
In th
at re
gard
it i
s nec
essa
ry to
bea
r in
min
d th
at i
f the
Mem
ber S
tate
s are
not
in a
pos
ition
to g
rant
th
e m
ater
ial r
ecep
tion
cond
ition
s in
kind
Dire
ctiv
e 20
039
leav
es th
em th
e po
ssib
ility
of o
ptin
g to
gra
nt
the
mat
eria
l rec
eptio
n co
nditi
ons i
n th
e fo
rm o
f fin
anci
al a
llow
ance
s T
hose
allo
wan
ces m
ust
how
ever
be
suffi
cien
t to
mee
t the
bas
ic n
eeds
of a
sylu
m se
eker
s in
clud
ing
a di
gnifi
ed st
anda
rd o
f liv
ing
and
mus
t be
adeq
uate
for t
heir
heal
thrsquo
Para
49
lsquo49
Giv
en th
at th
e M
embe
r Sta
tes h
ave
a ce
rtai
n m
argi
n of
disc
retio
n as
rega
rds t
he m
etho
ds b
y w
hich
th
ey p
rovi
de th
e m
ater
ial r
ecep
tion
cond
ition
s th
ey m
ay th
us m
ake
paym
ent o
f the
fina
ncia
l allo
wan
ces
usin
g th
e bo
dies
whi
ch fo
rm p
art o
f the
gen
eral
pub
lic a
ssist
ance
syst
em a
s int
erm
edia
ry p
rovi
ded
that
th
ose
bodi
es e
nsur
e th
at th
e m
inim
um st
anda
rds l
aid
dow
n in
that
dire
ctiv
e as
rega
rds t
he a
sylu
m se
eker
s ar
e m
etrsquo
Para
50
lsquo50
In th
at re
gard
it m
ust b
e po
inte
d ou
t tha
t it i
s for
the
Mem
ber S
tate
s to
ensu
re th
at th
ose
bodi
es
mee
t the
min
imum
stan
dard
s for
the
rece
ptio
n of
asy
lum
seek
ers
satu
ratio
n of
the
rece
ptio
n ne
twor
ks
not b
eing
a ju
stifi
catio
n fo
r any
der
ogat
ion
from
mee
ting
thos
e st
anda
rdsrsquo
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 15
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
[GC]
A B
and
C v
St
aats
secr
etar
is v
an
Veili
ghei
d en
Just
itie
Join
ed C
ases
C-1
481
3 to
C-
150
13
ECLI
EU
C2
014
2406
021
220
14
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
n th
e in
terp
reta
tion
of A
rtic
le 4
of C
ounc
il Directive20
0483EC
of2
9 Ap
ril200
4on
minim
umstan
dardsforth
equ
alificatio
nan
dstatusofthird
coun
try
natio
nals
or st
atel
ess p
erso
ns a
s ref
ugee
s or a
s per
sons
who
oth
erw
ise n
eed
inte
rnat
iona
l pr
otec
tion
and
the
cont
ent o
f the
pro
tect
ion
gran
ted
and
Artic
les 3
and
7 o
f the
Cha
rter
of F
unda
men
tal
Righ
ts o
f the
Eur
opea
n U
nion
Area
of f
reed
om s
ecur
ity a
nd ju
stic
e mdash
Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3EC
mdash M
inim
um st
anda
rds f
or g
rant
ing
refu
gee
stat
us o
r sub
sidia
ry p
rote
ctio
n st
atus
mdash A
rtic
le 4
mdash A
sses
smen
t of f
acts
and
circ
umst
ance
s mdash M
etho
ds
of a
sses
smen
t mdash A
ccep
tanc
e of
cer
tain
type
s of e
vide
nce
mdash E
xten
t of t
he c
ompe
tent
nat
iona
l aut
horit
yrsquos
pow
ers mdash
Fea
r of p
erse
cutio
n on
gro
unds
of s
exua
l orie
ntat
ion
Para
57
lsquo57
It sh
ould
be
note
d in
that
rega
rd th
at i
n ac
cord
ance
with
Art
icle
4(3
)(c) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3 th
at
asse
ssm
ent m
ust b
e m
ade
on a
n in
divi
dual
bas
is an
d m
ust t
ake
acco
unt o
f the
indi
vidu
al si
tuat
ion
and
pers
onal
circ
umst
ance
s of t
he a
pplic
ant
incl
udin
g fa
ctor
s suc
h as
bac
kgro
und
gen
der a
nd a
ge i
n or
der
for i
t to
be d
eter
min
ed w
heth
er o
n th
e ba
sis o
f the
app
lican
trsquos p
erso
nal c
ircum
stan
ces
the
acts
to w
hich
th
e ap
plic
ant h
as b
een
or c
ould
be
expo
sed
wou
ld a
mou
nt to
per
secu
tion
or se
rious
har
mrsquo
Para
s 6
1-62
lsquo61
In th
at re
spec
t it
shou
ld b
e re
calle
d th
at A
rtic
le 4
(3)(c
) of D
irect
ive
2004
83
requ
ires t
he c
ompe
tent
au
thor
ities
to c
arry
out
an
asse
ssm
ent t
hat t
akes
acc
ount
of t
he in
divi
dual
pos
ition
and
per
sona
l ci
rcum
stan
ces o
f the
app
lican
t and
that
Art
icle
13(
3)(a
) of D
irect
ive
2005
85
requ
ires t
hose
aut
horit
ies
to c
ondu
ct th
e in
terv
iew
in a
man
ner t
hat t
akes
acc
ount
of t
he p
erso
nal a
nd g
ener
al c
ircum
stan
ces
surr
ound
ing
the
appl
icat
ion
lsquo62
Whi
le q
uest
ions
bas
ed o
n st
ereo
type
d no
tions
may
be
a us
eful
ele
men
t at t
he d
ispos
al o
f com
pete
nt
auth
oriti
es fo
r the
pur
pose
s of t
he a
sses
smen
t th
e as
sess
men
t of a
pplic
atio
ns fo
r the
gra
nt o
f ref
ugee
st
atus
on
the
basis
sole
ly o
f ste
reot
yped
not
ions
ass
ocia
ted
with
hom
osex
uals
does
not
nev
erth
eles
s
satis
fy th
e re
quire
men
ts o
f the
pro
visio
ns re
ferr
ed to
in th
e pr
evio
us p
arag
raph
in
that
it d
oes n
ot a
llow
th
ose
auth
oriti
es to
take
acc
ount
of t
he in
divi
dual
situ
atio
n an
d pe
rson
al c
ircum
stan
ces o
f the
app
lican
t fo
r asy
lum
con
cern
edrsquo
NC-604128 M
ay
2014
X an
d O
ther
s C-
199
12 to
C-2
011
2
7 No
vembe
r2013
M C
-277
11
22 Novem
ber2
012
16 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
s 6
4-66
rsquo64
In th
e se
cond
pla
ce w
hile
the
natio
nal a
utho
ritie
s are
ent
itled
to c
arry
out
whe
re a
ppro
pria
te
inte
rvie
ws i
n or
der t
o de
term
ine
the
fact
s and
circ
umst
ance
s as r
egar
ds th
e de
clar
ed se
xual
orie
ntat
ion
of
an a
pplic
ant f
or a
sylu
m q
uest
ions
con
cern
ing
deta
ils o
f the
sexu
al p
ract
ices
of t
hat a
pplic
ant a
re c
ontr
ary
to th
e fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts g
uara
ntee
d by
the
Char
ter a
nd i
n pa
rtic
ular
to
the
right
to re
spec
t for
priv
ate
and
fam
ily li
fe a
s affi
rmed
in A
rtic
le 7
ther
eof
lsquo65
In re
latio
n in
the
third
pla
ce t
o th
e op
tion
for t
he n
atio
nal a
utho
ritie
s of a
llow
ing
as c
erta
in
appl
ican
ts in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s pro
pose
d h
omos
exua
l act
s to
be p
erfo
rmed
the
subm
issio
n of
the
appl
ican
ts to
pos
sible
lsquotes
tsrsquo i
n or
der t
o de
mon
stra
te th
eir h
omos
exua
lity
or e
ven
the
prod
uctio
n by
thos
e ap
plic
ants
of e
vide
nce
such
as f
ilms o
f the
ir in
timat
e ac
ts i
t mus
t be
poin
ted
out t
hat
besid
es th
e fa
ct
that
such
evi
denc
e do
es n
ot n
eces
saril
y ha
ve p
roba
tive
valu
e su
ch e
vide
nce
wou
ld o
f its
nat
ure
infr
inge
hu
man
dig
nity
the
resp
ect o
f whi
ch is
gua
rant
eed
by A
rtic
le 1
of t
he C
hart
er
lsquo66
Fur
ther
mor
e th
e ef
fect
of a
utho
risin
g or
acc
eptin
g su
ch ty
pes o
f evi
denc
e w
ould
be
to in
cite
oth
er
appl
ican
ts to
offe
r the
sam
e an
d w
ould
lead
de
fact
o to
requ
iring
app
lican
ts to
pro
vide
such
evi
denc
ersquo
Para
69
rsquo69
How
ever
hav
ing
rega
rd to
the
sens
itive
nat
ure
of q
uest
ions
rela
ting
to a
per
sonrsquo
s per
sona
l ide
ntity
an
d in
par
ticul
ar h
is se
xual
ity i
t can
not b
e co
nclu
ded
that
the
decl
ared
sexu
ality
lack
s cre
dibi
lity
simpl
y be
caus
e d
ue to
his
retic
ence
in re
veal
ing
intim
ate
aspe
cts o
f his
life
that
per
son
did
not d
ecla
re h
is ho
mos
exua
lity
at th
e ou
tset
rsquo
Para
70
lsquo70
Mor
eove
r it
mus
t be
obse
rved
that
the
oblig
atio
n la
id d
own
by A
rtic
le 4
(1) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3 to
subm
it al
l ele
men
ts n
eede
d to
subs
tant
iate
the
appl
icat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n lsquoa
s soo
n as
po
ssib
lersquo i
s tem
pere
d by
the
requ
irem
ent i
mpo
sed
on th
e co
mpe
tent
aut
horit
ies
und
er A
rtic
le 1
3(3)
(a) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
058
5 an
d Ar
ticle
4(3
) of D
irect
ive
2004
83
to c
ondu
ct th
e in
terv
iew
taki
ng a
ccou
nt o
f th
e pe
rson
al o
r gen
eral
circ
umst
ance
s sur
roun
ding
the
appl
icat
ion
in p
artic
ular
the
vul
nera
bilit
y of
the
appl
ican
t an
d to
car
ry o
ut a
n in
divi
dual
ass
essm
ent o
f the
app
licat
ion
taki
ng a
ccou
nt o
f the
indi
vidu
al
posit
ion
and
pers
onal
circ
umst
ance
s of e
ach
appl
ican
trsquo
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 17
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
Khal
ed B
oudj
lida
v Pr
eacutefet
des
Pyr
eacuteneacutee
s-At
lant
ique
s
C-24
913
EUC
201
424
31
111
220
14
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
6 o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
081
15E
C fo
r ret
urni
ng il
lega
lly st
ayin
g th
ird-c
ount
ry n
atio
nals
and
of th
e rig
ht to
be
hear
d in
all
proc
eedi
ngs
Dire
ctiv
e 20
081
15E
C mdash
Ret
urn
of il
lega
lly st
ayin
g th
ird-c
ount
ry n
atio
nals
mdash P
rinci
ple
of re
spec
t for
the
right
s of t
he d
efen
ce mdash
Rig
ht o
f an
illeg
ally
stay
ing
third
-cou
ntry
nat
iona
l to
be h
eard
bef
ore
the
adop
tion
of a
dec
ision
liab
le to
affe
ct h
is in
tere
sts mdash
Ret
urn
deci
sion
mdash R
ight
to b
e he
ard
befo
re th
e re
turn
de
cisio
n is
issue
d mdash
Ext
ent o
f tha
t rig
ht
Para
s 3
3-34
lsquo33
Con
sequ
ently
an
appl
ican
t for
a re
siden
t per
mit
cann
ot d
eriv
e fr
om A
rtic
le 4
1(2)
(a) o
f the
Ch
arte
r a ri
ght t
o be
hea
rd in
all
proc
eedi
ngs r
elat
ing
to h
is ap
plic
atio
n (t
he ju
dgm
ent i
n M
ukar
ubeg
a
EUC
201
423
36 p
arag
raph
44)
lsquo34
Suc
h a
right
is h
owev
er in
here
nt in
resp
ect f
or th
e rig
hts o
f the
def
ence
whi
ch is
a g
ener
al p
rinci
ple
of E
U la
w (t
he ju
dgm
ent i
n M
ukar
ubeg
a E
UC
201
423
36 p
arag
raph
45)
rsquo
Muk
arub
ega
C-1
661
3
5 No
vembe
r2014
Kam
ino
Inte
rnat
iona
l Lo
gist
ics C
-129
13
3 July2014
YS a
nd O
ther
s C-
141
12
andC-3721217 July
2014
Cica
la C
-482
10
21 Decem
ber2
011
M C
-277
11
22 Novem
ber2
012
Tech
nisc
he U
nive
rsitauml
t M
uumlnch
en C
-269
90
21 Novem
ber1
991
Sopr
opeacute
C-3
490
7
18 Decem
ber2
008
G an
d R
C-3
831
3
10 Sep
tembe
r2013
Alas
sini a
nd O
ther
s C-
317
08 to
C-3
200
8
18 M
arch2010
Texd
ata
Softw
are
C-4181126 Septem
ber
2013
Achu
ghba
bian
C-329116 Decem
ber
2011
18 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
[GC]
Moh
amed
MrsquoB
odj v
Eacuteta
t be
lge
C-54
213
EUC
201
424
52
181
220
14
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
s 2(e
) and
(f)
151
820(3)2
8an
d29
ofC
ouncilDirective20
0483EC
of2
9 Ap
ril200
4on
minim
umstan
dardsforth
equ
alifi
catio
n an
d st
atus
of t
hird
cou
ntry
nat
iona
ls or
stat
eles
s per
sons
as r
efug
ees o
r as p
erso
ns w
ho
othe
rwise
nee
d in
tern
atio
nal p
rote
ctio
n an
d th
e co
nten
t of t
he p
rote
ctio
n gr
ante
d
Char
ter o
f Fun
dam
enta
l Rig
hts o
f the
Eur
opea
n U
nion
mdash D
irect
ive
2004
83
EC ndash
ndash M
inim
um st
anda
rds
for d
eter
min
ing
who
qua
lifie
s for
refu
gee
stat
us o
r sub
sidia
ry p
rote
ctio
n st
atus
mdash To
rtur
e or
inhu
man
or
deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent o
r pun
ishm
ent o
f an
appl
ican
t in
the
coun
try
of o
rigin
mdash M
ore
favo
urab
le
stan
dard
s mdash A
pplic
ant s
uffe
ring
from
a se
rious
illn
ess mdash
No
appr
opria
te tr
eatm
ent a
vaila
ble
in th
e co
untr
y of
orig
in mdash
Soci
al p
rote
ctio
n mdash
Heal
th c
are
Para
s 3
5-37
lsquo35
Acc
ordi
ngly
Art
icle
6 o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3 se
ts o
ut a
list
of t
hose
dee
med
resp
onsib
le fo
r inf
lictin
g se
rious
har
m w
hich
supp
orts
the
view
that
such
har
m m
ust t
ake
the
form
of c
ondu
ct o
n th
e pa
rt o
f a
third
par
ty a
nd th
at it
can
not t
here
fore
sim
ply
be th
e re
sult
of g
ener
al sh
ortc
omin
gs in
the
heal
th
syst
em o
f the
cou
ntry
of o
rigin
lsquo36
Sim
ilarly
rec
ital 2
6 in
the
prea
mbl
e to
Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3 st
ates
that
risk
s to
whi
ch th
e po
pula
tion
of a
cou
ntry
or a
sect
ion
of th
e po
pula
tion
is ge
nera
lly e
xpos
ed d
o no
t nor
mal
ly in
them
selv
es c
reat
e an
indi
vidu
al th
reat
whi
ch w
ould
qua
lify
as se
rious
har
m I
t fol
low
s tha
t the
risk
of d
eter
iora
tion
in th
e he
alth
of a
third
cou
ntry
nat
iona
l suf
ferin
g fr
om a
serio
us il
lnes
s as a
resu
lt of
the
abse
nce
of a
ppro
pria
te
trea
tmen
t in
his c
ount
ry o
f orig
in is
not
suffi
cien
t un
less
that
third
cou
ntry
nat
iona
l is i
nten
tiona
lly
depr
ived
of h
ealth
car
e to
war
rant
that
per
son
bein
g gr
ante
d su
bsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
lsquo37
Tha
t int
erpr
etat
ion
is al
so su
ppor
ted
by re
cita
ls 5
6 9
and
24
in th
e pr
eam
ble
to D
irect
ive
2004
83
fr
om w
hich
it is
app
aren
t tha
t w
hile
the
dire
ctiv
e is
inte
nded
to c
ompl
emen
t and
add
to b
y m
eans
of
subs
idia
ry p
rote
ctio
n th
e pr
otec
tion
of re
fuge
es e
nshr
ined
in th
e Co
nven
tion
rela
ting
to th
e St
atus
of
Refugeessigne
dinGen
evaon
28 July195
1th
roug
htheiden
tificationofpersonsgen
uine
lyin
nee
dof
inte
rnat
iona
l pro
tect
ion
(see
to
that
effe
ct j
udgm
ent i
n Di
akiteacute
EU
C2
014
39 p
arag
raph
33)
its
scop
e do
es n
ot e
xten
d to
per
sons
gra
nted
leav
e to
resid
e in
the
terr
itorie
s of t
he M
embe
r Sta
tes f
or o
ther
re
ason
s th
at is
on
a di
scre
tiona
ry b
asis
on c
ompa
ssio
nate
or h
uman
itaria
n gr
ound
srsquo
Elga
faji
C-4
650
7
17 Fe
bruary2009
Diak
iteacute C
-285
12
30 Janu
ary2014
Maa
tsch
ap LA
en
DAB
Lang
estr
aat e
n P
Lang
estr
aat-T
roos
t C-111213 De
cembe
r20
12
ECtH
R N
v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m[G
C]27 May
2008no 2656505
30 Octob
er1991
B an
d D
C-5
709
and
C-101099 Novem
ber
2010
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 19
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
39
lsquo39
It sh
ould
be
note
d in
that
rega
rd th
at a
ccor
ding
to th
e ca
se-la
w o
f the
Eur
opea
n Co
urt o
f Hum
an
Righ
ts th
at w
hile
non
-nat
iona
ls su
bjec
t to
a de
cisio
n au
thor
ising
thei
r rem
oval
can
not
in p
rinci
ple
cla
im
any
entit
lem
ent t
o re
mai
n in
the
terr
itory
of a
Sta
te in
ord
er to
con
tinue
to b
enef
it fr
om m
edic
al s
ocia
l or
oth
er fo
rms o
f ass
istan
ce a
nd se
rvic
es p
rovi
ded
by th
at S
tate
a d
ecisi
on to
rem
ove
a fo
reig
n na
tiona
l su
fferin
g fr
om a
serio
us p
hysic
al o
r men
tal i
llnes
s to
a co
untr
y w
here
the
faci
litie
s for
the
trea
tmen
t of
the
illne
ss a
re in
ferio
r to
thos
e av
aila
ble
in th
at S
tate
may
raise
an
issue
und
er A
rtic
le 3
ECH
R in
ver
y ex
cept
iona
l cas
es w
here
the
hum
anita
rian
grou
nds a
gain
st re
mov
al a
re c
ompe
lling
rsquo
CJEU
[GC]
Meh
rdad
Ghe
zelb
ash
v St
aats
secr
etar
is v
an
Veili
ghei
d en
Just
itie
C-63
15
EUC
201
640
9
176
201
6
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
27
of
Regu
latio
n(EU)N
o60
420
13ofthe
Europ
eanParliam
enta
ndofthe
Cou
ncilof26 June
201
3establish
ing
the
crite
ria a
nd m
echa
nism
s for
det
erm
inin
g th
e M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
for e
xam
inin
g an
app
licat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n lo
dged
in o
ne o
f the
Mem
ber S
tate
s by
a th
ird-c
ount
ry n
atio
nal o
r a st
atel
ess
pers
on
Regu
latio
n (E
U) N
o 60
420
13 mdash
Det
erm
inat
ion
of th
e M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
for e
xam
inin
g an
asy
lum
ap
plic
atio
n lo
dged
in o
ne o
f the
Mem
ber S
tate
s by
a th
ird-c
ount
ry n
atio
nal mdash
Art
icle
12
mdash Is
sue
of
resid
ence
doc
umen
ts o
r visa
s mdash A
rtic
le 2
7 mdash
Rem
edie
s mdash E
xten
t of j
udic
ial s
crut
iny
Para
36
lsquo36
It is
app
aren
t fro
m th
e w
ordi
ng o
f Art
icle
27(
1) o
f Reg
ulat
ion
No
604
2013
that
the
lega
l rem
edy
prov
ided
for i
n th
at a
rtic
le m
ust b
e ef
fect
ive
and
cove
r que
stio
ns o
f bot
h fa
ct a
nd la
w M
oreo
ver
the
draf
ting
of th
at p
rovi
sion
mak
es n
o re
fere
nce
to a
ny li
mita
tion
of th
e ar
gum
ents
that
may
be
raise
d by
the
asyl
um se
eker
whe
n av
ailin
g hi
mse
lf of
that
rem
edy
The
sam
e ap
plie
s to
the
draf
ting
of A
rtic
le 4
(1)(d
) of
that
regu
latio
n c
once
rnin
g th
e in
form
atio
n th
at m
ust b
e pr
ovid
ed to
the
appl
ican
t by
the
com
pete
nt
auth
oriti
es a
s to
the
poss
ibili
ty o
f cha
lleng
ing
a tr
ansf
er d
ecisi
onrsquo
NS v
Sec
reta
ry o
f St
ate
for t
he H
ome
Depa
rtm
ent a
nd
ME
and
Oth
ers
v Re
fuge
e Ap
plica
tions
Co
mm
issio
ner a
nd
Min
ister
for J
ustic
e
Equa
lity
and
Law
Re
form
joi
ned
case
s C-
411
10 a
nd C
-493
10
21 Decem
ber2
011
Abdu
llahi
C-3
941
2
10 Decem
ber2
013
Mig
ratio
nsve
rket
v
Edga
r Pet
rosia
n an
d O
ther
s C-
190
8
29 Janu
ary2009
B an
d D
C-5
709
and
C-101099 Novem
ber
2010
20 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
M v
Min
ister
for J
ustic
e an
d Eq
ualit
y Ire
land
and
th
e At
torn
ey G
ener
al
C-56
014
EUC
201
710
1
090
220
17
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ns th
e in
terp
reta
tion
of th
e rig
ht to
be
hear
d in
th
e co
ntex
t of t
he p
roce
dure
for g
rant
of s
ubsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
stat
us u
nder
Cou
ncil
Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3EC
of2
9 Ap
ril200
4on
minim
umstan
dardsforth
equ
alificatio
nan
dstatusofthirdcou
ntrynationa
lsor
stat
eles
s per
sons
as r
efug
ees o
r as p
erso
ns w
ho o
ther
wise
nee
d in
tern
atio
nal p
rote
ctio
n an
d th
e co
nten
t of
the
prot
ectio
n gr
ante
d
Area
of f
reed
om s
ecur
ity a
nd ju
stic
e mdash
Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3EC
mdash M
inim
um st
anda
rds f
or th
e qu
alifi
catio
n an
d st
atus
of t
hird
cou
ntry
nat
iona
ls or
stat
eles
s per
sons
as r
efug
ees mdash
App
licat
ion
for s
ubsid
iary
pr
otec
tion
mdash la
wfu
lnes
s of t
he n
atio
nal p
roce
dure
for e
xam
inin
g an
app
licat
ion
for s
ubsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
mad
e af
ter t
he re
ject
ion
of a
n ap
plic
atio
n fo
r ref
ugee
stat
us mdash
Rig
ht to
be
hear
d mdash
Rig
ht to
an
inte
rvie
w mdash
Rig
ht to
cal
l and
cro
ss-e
xam
ine
witn
esse
s
Para
s 5
1-52
lsquo51
An
inte
rvie
w m
ust a
lso b
e ar
rang
ed if
it is
app
aren
t mdash in
the
light
of t
he p
erso
nal o
r gen
eral
ci
rcum
stan
ces i
n w
hich
the
appl
icat
ion
for s
ubsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
has b
een
mad
e in
par
ticul
ar a
ny sp
ecifi
c vu
lner
abili
ty o
f the
app
lican
t du
e fo
r exa
mpl
e to
his
age
his
stat
e of
hea
lth o
r the
fact
that
he
has b
een
subj
ecte
d to
serio
us fo
rms o
f vio
lenc
e mdash
that
one
is n
eces
sary
in o
rder
to a
llow
him
to c
omm
ent i
n fu
ll an
d co
here
ntly
on
the
elem
ents
cap
able
of s
ubst
antia
ting
that
app
licat
ion
lsquo52
Con
sequ
ently
the
refe
rrin
g co
urt h
as th
e ta
sk o
f est
ablis
hing
whe
ther
in th
e m
ain
proc
eedi
ngs t
here
ar
e sp
ecifi
c ci
rcum
stan
ces t
hat r
ende
r an
inte
rvie
w w
ith th
e ap
plic
ant f
or su
bsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
nece
ssar
y in
ord
er th
at h
is rig
ht to
be
hear
d is
effe
ctiv
ely
obse
rved
rsquo
Danq
ua C
-429
15
20 Octob
er2016
Muk
arub
ega
C-1
661
3
5 No
vembe
r2014
Boud
jlida
C-2
491
3
11 Decem
ber2
014
Leso
ochr
anaacuter
ske
zosk
upen
ie V
LK
C-243158 Novem
ber
2016
Bens
ada
Bena
llal
C-1611517 March
2016
Sopr
opeacute
C-3
490
7
18 Decem
ber2
008
G an
d R
C-8
313
10 Sep
tembe
r2013
M C
-277
11
22 Novem
ber2
012
Aalb
org
Port
land
and
O
ther
s v C
omm
issio
n
C-20
400
P C
-205
00
P C-
211
00 P
C-2
130
0 P
C-21
700
P a
nd
C-21900P7 Janu
ary
2004
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 21
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
CK a
nd O
ther
s v
Repu
blik
a Sl
oven
ija
C-57
816
PPU
EUC
201
712
7
160
220
17
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ns th
e in
terp
reta
tion
of A
rtic
les 3
(2) a
nd
17(1)o
fRegulation(EU)N
o60
420
13ofthe
Europ
eanParliam
enta
ndofthe
Cou
ncilof26 June
201
3es
tabl
ishin
g th
e cr
iteria
and
mec
hani
sms f
or d
eter
min
ing
the
Mem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
le fo
r exa
min
ing
an
appl
icat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n lo
dged
in o
ne o
f the
Mem
ber S
tate
s by
a th
ird-c
ount
ry n
atio
nal o
r a
stat
eles
s per
son
Art
icle
267
TFE
U a
nd A
rtic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
er o
f Fun
dam
enta
l Rig
hts o
f the
Eur
opea
n U
nion
Area
of f
reed
om s
ecur
ity a
nd ju
stic
e mdash
Bor
ders
asy
lum
and
imm
igra
tion
mdash D
ublin
syst
em mdash
Reg
ulat
ion
(EU
) No
604
2013
mdash A
rtic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
er o
f Fun
dam
enta
l Rig
hts o
f the
Eur
opea
n U
nion
mdash In
hum
an o
r de
grad
ing
trea
tmen
t mdash T
rans
fer o
f a se
rious
ly il
l asy
lum
seek
er to
the
Stat
e re
spon
sible
for e
xam
inin
g hi
s ap
plic
atio
n mdash
No
subs
tant
ial g
roun
ds fo
r bel
ievi
ng th
at th
ere
are
prov
en sy
stem
ic fl
aws i
n th
at M
embe
r St
ate
mdash O
blig
atio
ns im
pose
d on
the
Mem
ber S
tate
hav
ing
to c
arry
out
the
tran
sfer
Para
44
lsquo44
It fo
llow
s a
ccor
ding
to th
at c
ourt
tha
t the
re is
an
oblig
atio
n on
the
com
pete
nt a
utho
ritie
s and
the
natio
nal c
ourt
to e
xam
ine
all t
he c
ircum
stan
ces o
f sig
nific
ance
for o
bser
vanc
e of
the
prin
cipl
e of
non
-re
foul
emen
t in
clud
ing
the
stat
e of
hea
lth o
f the
per
son
conc
erne
d in
the
case
whe
re a
n as
ylum
seek
er
clai
ms t
hat t
he M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
for h
is ap
plic
atio
n is
not a
lsquosaf
e St
atersquo
for h
im I
n th
at c
onte
xt
thos
e au
thor
ities
mus
t tak
e in
to a
ccou
nt th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
per
sona
l situ
atio
n in
Slo
veni
a an
d as
sess
whe
ther
th
e m
ere
fact
of t
rans
ferr
ing
that
per
son
mig
ht in
itse
lf be
con
trar
y to
the
prin
cipl
e of
non
-ref
oule
men
trsquo
Para
59
lsquo59
How
ever
in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith th
e se
ttle
d ca
se-la
w o
f the
Cou
rt t
he ru
les o
f sec
onda
ry E
U la
w
incl
udin
g th
e pr
ovisi
ons o
f the
Dub
lin II
I Reg
ulat
ion
mus
t be
inte
rpre
ted
and
appl
ied
in a
man
ner
cons
isten
t with
the
fund
amen
tal r
ight
s gua
rant
eed
by th
e Ch
arte
r (se
e b
y an
alog
y as
rega
rds t
he D
ublin
IIRe
gulatio
nju
dgmen
tof2
1 De
cembe
r201
1N
S a
nd O
ther
s C
-411
10
and
C-49
310
EU
C2
011
865
pa
ragr
aphs
77
and
99)
The
proh
ibiti
on o
f inh
uman
or d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t or p
unish
men
t la
id d
own
in A
rtic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
er i
s in
that
rega
rd o
f fun
dam
enta
l im
port
ance
to
the
exte
nt th
at it
is a
bsol
ute
in th
at it
is c
lose
ly li
nked
to re
spec
t for
hum
an d
igni
ty w
hich
is th
e su
bjec
t of A
rtic
le 1
of t
he C
hart
er
(see
tothateffe
ctjud
gmen
tof5
April20
16A
ranyosi and
Căldă
raru
C-4
041
5 an
d C-
659
15 P
PU
EUC
201
619
8 p
arag
raph
s 85
and
86)rsquo
NS a
nd O
ther
s C-
411
10 a
nd C
-493
10
21 Decem
ber2
011
Aranyosi an
d Că
ldăraru
C-
404
15 a
nd C
-659
15
5 Ap
ril2016
Ghez
elba
sh C
-63
15
7 June
2016
ECtH
R P
apos
hvili
v
Belg
ium
no 4173810
13 Decem
ber2
016
IC-255135 Ju
ne2014
Aranyosi an
d Că
ldăraru
C-
404
15 a
nd C
-659
15
5 Ap
ril2016
ECtH
R K
arim
v Sw
eden
no
24171054 Ju
ly
2006
ECtH
R K
ochi
eva
and
Oth
ers v
Swed
en (d
ec)
no 752031230 Ap
ril
2013
22 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
63
lsquo63
As r
egar
ds th
e fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts t
hat a
re c
onfe
rred
on
them
in
addi
tion
to th
e co
dific
atio
n in
Artic
le3(2)o
fthe
Dub
linIIIR
egulationofthe
case-lawarisingfrom
thejudg
men
tof2
1 De
cembe
r20
11 N
S a
nd O
ther
s (C-
411
10 a
nd C
-493
10
EU
C2
011
865)
ref
erre
d to
in p
arag
raph
60
of th
e pr
esen
t jud
gmen
t th
e EU
legi
slatu
re st
ress
ed i
n re
cita
ls 32
and
39
of th
at re
gula
tion
that
the
Mem
ber
Stat
es a
re b
ound
in
the
appl
icat
ion
of th
at re
gula
tion
by
the
case
-law
of t
he E
urop
ean
Cour
t of H
uman
Ri
ghts
and
by
Artic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
errsquo
Para
65
lsquo65
It fo
llow
s fro
m a
ll of
the
prec
edin
g co
nsid
erat
ions
that
the
tran
sfer
of a
n as
ylum
seek
er w
ithin
the
fram
ewor
k of
the
Dubl
in II
I Reg
ulat
ion
can
take
pla
ce o
nly
in c
ondi
tions
whi
ch p
recl
ude
that
tran
sfer
from
re
sulti
ng in
a re
al ri
sk o
f the
per
son
conc
erne
d su
fferin
g in
hum
an o
r deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent
with
in th
e m
eani
ng o
f Art
icle
4 o
f the
Cha
rter
rsquo
Para
70
lsquo70
In
that
rega
rd i
t mus
t be
stat
ed a
s reg
ards
the
rece
ptio
n co
nditi
ons a
nd th
e ca
re a
vaila
ble
in th
e M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
tha
t the
Mem
ber S
tate
s bou
nd b
y th
e lsquore
cept
ionrsquo
dire
ctiv
e in
clud
ing
the
Repu
blic
of C
roat
ia a
re re
quire
d in
clud
ing
in th
e co
ntex
t of t
he p
roce
dure
und
er th
e Du
blin
III R
egul
atio
n
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith A
rtic
les 1
7 to
19
of th
at d
irect
ive
to p
rovi
de a
sylu
m se
eker
s with
the
nece
ssar
y he
alth
ca
re a
nd m
edic
al a
ssist
ance
incl
udin
g a
t lea
st e
mer
genc
y ca
re a
nd e
ssen
tial t
reat
men
t of i
llnes
ses a
nd o
f se
rious
men
tal d
isord
ers
In th
ose
circ
umst
ance
s a
nd in
acc
orda
nce
with
the
mut
ual c
onfid
ence
bet
wee
n M
embe
r Sta
tes
ther
e is
a st
rong
pre
sum
ptio
n th
at th
e m
edic
al tr
eatm
ents
offe
red
to a
sylu
m se
eker
s in
the
Mem
ber S
tate
s will
be
adeq
uate
rsquo
Para
73
lsquo73
That
said
it c
anno
t be
rule
d ou
t tha
t the
tran
sfer
of a
n as
ylum
seek
er w
hose
stat
e of
hea
lth is
pa
rtic
ular
ly se
rious
may
in
itsel
f re
sult
for t
he p
erso
n co
ncer
ned
in a
real
risk
of i
nhum
an o
r deg
radi
ng
trea
tmen
t with
in th
e m
eani
ng o
f Art
icle
4 o
f the
Cha
rter
irr
espe
ctiv
e of
the
qual
ity o
f the
rece
ptio
n an
d th
e ca
re a
vaila
ble
in th
e M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
for e
xam
inin
g hi
s app
licat
ion
rsquo
ECtH
R D
raga
n an
d O
ther
s v G
erm
any
(dec
) no
33743037 Octob
er
2004
Hala
fC-5281130 May
2013
Abdu
llahi
C-3
941
2
10 Decem
ber2
013
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 23
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
s 7
5-77
lsquo75
Con
sequ
ently
whe
re a
n as
ylum
seek
er p
rovi
des
par
ticul
arly
in th
e co
ntex
t of a
n ef
fect
ive
rem
edy
guar
ante
ed to
him
by
Artic
le 2
7 of
the
Dubl
in II
I Reg
ulat
ion
obj
ectiv
e ev
iden
ce s
uch
as m
edic
al
cert
ifica
tes c
once
rnin
g hi
s per
son
cap
able
of s
how
ing
the
part
icul
ar se
rious
ness
of h
is st
ate
of h
ealth
an
d th
e sig
nific
ant a
nd ir
reve
rsib
le c
onse
quen
ces t
o w
hich
his
tran
sfer
mig
ht le
ad t
he a
utho
ritie
s of t
he
Mem
ber S
tate
con
cern
ed i
nclu
ding
its c
ourt
s c
anno
t ign
ore
that
evi
denc
e T
hey
are
on
the
cont
rary
un
der a
n ob
ligat
ion
to a
sses
s the
risk
that
such
con
sequ
ence
s cou
ld o
ccur
whe
n th
ey d
ecid
e to
tran
sfer
th
e pe
rson
con
cern
ed o
r in
the
case
of a
cou
rt t
he le
galit
y of
a d
ecisi
on to
tran
sfer
sin
ce th
e ex
ecut
ion
of
that
dec
ision
may
lead
to in
hum
an o
r deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent o
f tha
t per
son
lsquo76
It is
the
refo
re f
or th
ose
auth
oriti
es to
elim
inat
e an
y se
rious
dou
bts c
once
rnin
g th
e im
pact
of
the
tran
sfer
on
the
stat
e of
hea
lth o
f the
per
son
conc
erne
d In
this
rega
rd i
n pa
rtic
ular
in th
e ca
se o
f a
serio
us p
sych
iatr
ic il
lnes
s it
is n
ot su
ffici
ent t
o co
nsid
er o
nly
the
cons
eque
nces
of p
hysic
ally
tran
spor
ting
the
pers
on c
once
rned
from
one
Mem
ber S
tate
to a
noth
er b
ut a
ll th
e sig
nific
ant a
nd p
erm
anen
t co
nseq
uenc
es th
at m
ight
aris
e fr
om th
e tr
ansf
er m
ust b
e ta
ken
into
con
sider
atio
n
lsquo77
In th
at c
onte
xt t
he a
utho
ritie
s of t
he M
embe
r Sta
tes c
once
rned
mus
t ver
ify w
heth
er th
e st
ate
of
heal
th o
f the
per
son
at is
sue
may
be
prot
ecte
d ap
prop
riate
ly a
nd su
ffici
ently
by
taki
ng th
e pr
ecau
tions
en
visa
ged
by th
e Du
blin
III R
egul
atio
n an
d in
the
affir
mat
ive
mus
t im
plem
ent t
hose
pre
caut
ions
rsquo
Para
s 8
1-90
lsquo81
In th
is re
gard
the
Mem
ber S
tate
car
ryin
g ou
t the
tran
sfer
mus
t be
able
to o
rgan
ise it
in su
ch a
way
th
at th
e as
ylum
seek
er c
once
rned
is a
ccom
pani
ed d
urin
g tr
ansp
orta
tion
by
adeq
uate
med
ical
staf
f with
th
e ne
cess
ary
equi
pmen
t re
sour
ces a
nd m
edic
atio
n so
as t
o pr
even
t any
wor
seni
ng o
f his
heal
th o
r any
ac
t of v
iole
nce
by h
im to
war
ds h
imse
lf or
oth
er p
erso
ns
lsquo82
Tha
t Mem
ber S
tate
mus
t also
be
able
to e
nsur
e th
at th
e as
ylum
seek
er c
once
rned
rece
ives
car
e up
on
his a
rriv
al in
the
Mem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
le I
n th
at re
spec
t it
mus
t be
reca
lled
that
Art
icle
s 31
and
32
of th
e Du
blin
III R
egul
atio
n re
quire
the
Mem
ber S
tate
car
ryin
g ou
t the
tran
sfer
to c
omm
unic
ate
to th
e M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
such
info
rmat
ion
conc
erni
ng th
e st
ate
of h
ealth
of t
he a
sylu
m se
eker
as t
o al
low
that
Mem
ber S
tate
to p
rovi
de h
im w
ith th
e im
med
iate
hea
lth c
are
requ
ired
in o
rder
to p
rote
ct h
is vi
tal i
nter
ests
24 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo83
The
stan
dard
form
set o
ut in
Ann
ex V
I to
the
impl
emen
ting
regu
latio
n an
d th
e co
mm
on h
ealth
ce
rtifi
cate
foun
d in
Ann
ex IX
to th
at re
gula
tion
may
thus
be
used
to in
form
the
Mem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
le
that
the
asyl
um se
eker
con
cern
ed re
quire
s med
ical
ass
istan
ce a
nd c
are
upon
his
arriv
al a
s wel
l as a
ll th
e re
leva
nt a
spec
ts o
f his
illne
ss a
nd th
e ca
re w
hich
that
illn
ess w
ill m
ake
nece
ssar
y in
the
futu
re I
n th
at
case
tha
t inf
orm
atio
n m
ust b
e co
mm
unic
ated
with
in a
reas
onab
le p
erio
d of
tim
e be
fore
the
tran
sfer
is
carr
ied
out
in o
rder
to p
rovi
de th
e M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
with
suffi
cien
t tim
e to
take
the
nece
ssar
y m
easu
res
The
Mem
ber S
tate
car
ryin
g ou
t the
tran
sfer
may
in
addi
tion
obt
ain
from
the
Mem
ber S
tate
re
spon
sible
the
conf
irmat
ion
that
the
nece
ssar
y ca
re w
ill b
e fu
lly a
vaila
ble
upon
arr
ival
lsquo84
If t
he c
ourt
hav
ing
juris
dict
ion
finds
that
thos
e pr
ecau
tions
are
suffi
cien
t to
excl
ude
any
real
risk
of
inhu
man
or d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t in
the
even
t of t
rans
ferr
ing
the
asyl
um se
eker
con
cern
ed i
t will
be
for
that
cou
rt to
take
the
nece
ssar
y m
easu
res t
o en
sure
that
they
are
impl
emen
ted
by th
e au
thor
ities
of t
he
requ
estin
g M
embe
r Sta
te b
efor
e th
e pe
rson
con
cern
ed is
tran
sfer
red
Whe
re n
eces
sary
tha
t per
sonrsquo
s st
ate
of h
ealth
shou
ld b
e re
asse
ssed
bef
ore
the
tran
sfer
is c
arrie
d ou
t
lsquo85
On
the
othe
r han
d if
the
taki
ng o
f tho
se p
reca
utio
ns is
reg
ard
bein
g ha
d to
the
part
icul
ar se
rious
ness
of
the
illne
ss o
f the
asy
lum
seek
er c
once
rned
not
suffi
cien
t to
ensu
re th
at h
is tr
ansf
er w
ill n
ot re
sult
in
a re
al ri
sk o
f a si
gnifi
cant
and
per
man
ent w
orse
ning
of h
is st
ate
of h
ealth
it i
s for
the
auth
oriti
es o
f the
M
embe
r Sta
te c
once
rned
to su
spen
d th
e ex
ecut
ion
of th
at p
erso
nrsquos t
rans
fer f
or su
ch ti
me
as h
is st
ate
of
heal
th re
nder
s him
unf
it fo
r suc
h a
tran
sfer
lsquo86
In
that
rega
rd i
t mus
t be
reca
lled
that
in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith A
rtic
le 2
9(1)
of t
he D
ublin
III R
egul
atio
n
the
tran
sfer
of t
he a
pplic
ant f
rom
the
requ
estin
g M
embe
r Sta
te to
the
Mem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
le is
to b
e ca
rrie
d ou
t as s
oon
as lsquop
ract
ical
ly p
ossib
lersquo
As is
app
aren
t fro
m A
rtic
le 9
of t
he im
plem
entin
g re
gula
tion
th
e ill
hea
lth o
f the
asy
lum
seek
er is
spec
ifica
lly re
gard
ed a
s a lsquop
hysic
al re
ason
rsquo cap
able
of j
ustif
ying
po
stpo
nem
ent o
f the
tran
sfer
lsquo87
If th
e st
ate
of h
ealth
of t
he a
sylu
m se
eker
con
cern
ed d
oes n
ot p
erm
it hi
s tra
nsfe
r it
is th
en fo
r the
re
ques
ting
Mem
ber S
tate
in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith th
at p
rovi
sion
to in
form
the
Mem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
le
with
out d
elay
of t
he p
ostp
onem
ent o
f the
tran
sfer
due
to th
e co
nditi
on o
f tha
t asy
lum
seek
er
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 25
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo88
Whe
re n
eces
sary
if i
t is n
oted
that
the
stat
e of
hea
lth o
f the
asy
lum
seek
er c
once
rned
is n
ot
expe
cted
to im
prov
e in
the
shor
t ter
m o
r tha
t the
susp
ensio
n of
the
proc
edur
e fo
r a lo
ng p
erio
d w
ould
ris
k w
orse
ning
the
cond
ition
of t
he p
erso
n co
ncer
ned
the
requ
estin
g M
embe
r Sta
te m
ay c
hoos
e to
co
nduc
t its
ow
n ex
amin
atio
n of
his
appl
icat
ion
by m
akin
g us
e of
the
lsquodisc
retio
nary
cla
usersquo
laid
dow
n in
Artic
le17(1)ofthe
Dub
linIIIR
egulation(see
tothateffe
ctjud
gmen
tof3
0 May201
3H
alaf
C-5
281
1
EUC
201
334
2 p
arag
raph
38)
The
fact
nev
erth
eles
s rem
ains
that
that
pro
visio
n re
ad in
the
light
of
Artic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
er c
anno
t be
inte
rpre
ted
in a
situ
atio
n su
ch a
s tha
t at i
ssue
in th
e m
ain
proc
eedi
ngs
as
mea
ning
that
it im
plie
s an
oblig
atio
n on
that
Mem
ber S
tate
to m
ake
use
of it
in th
at w
ay
lsquo89
In
any
even
t if
the
stat
e of
hea
lth o
f the
asy
lum
seek
er c
once
rned
doe
s not
ena
ble
the
requ
estin
g M
embe
r Sta
te to
car
ry o
ut th
e tr
ansf
er b
efor
e th
e ex
piry
of t
he si
x-m
onth
per
iod
prov
ided
for i
n Ar
ticle
29(
1) o
f the
Dub
lin II
I Reg
ulat
ion
the
Mem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
le w
ould
be
relie
ved
of it
s obl
igat
ion
to ta
ke c
harg
e of
the
pers
on c
once
rned
and
resp
onsib
ility
wou
ld th
en b
e tr
ansf
erre
d to
the
first
Mem
ber
Stat
e in
acc
orda
nce
with
par
agra
ph 2
of t
hat a
rtic
le
lsquo90
It is
for t
he re
ferr
ing
cour
t to
dete
rmin
e in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s w
heth
er th
e st
ate
of h
ealth
of
C K
is o
f suc
h se
rious
ness
that
ther
e ar
e su
bsta
ntia
l gro
unds
for b
elie
ving
that
her
tran
sfer
wou
ld re
sult
for h
er in
a re
al ri
sk o
f inh
uman
or d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
er
In th
e af
firm
ativ
e it
will
be
for t
he re
ferr
ing
cour
t to
elim
inat
e th
ose
grou
nds b
y en
surin
g th
at th
e pr
ecau
tions
refe
rred
to in
par
agra
phs 8
1 to
83
of th
e pr
esen
t jud
gmen
t are
take
n be
fore
the
tran
sfer
of
C K
or
if ne
cess
ary
that
the
tran
sfer
of t
hat p
erso
n is
susp
ende
d un
til h
er st
ate
of h
ealth
per
mits
itrsquo
Para
98
lsquo98
Sin
ce th
ese
proc
eedi
ngs a
re f
or th
e pa
rtie
s to
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s a
step
in th
e ac
tion
pend
ing
befo
re th
e re
ferr
ing
cour
t th
e de
cisio
n on
cos
ts is
a m
atte
r for
that
cou
rt C
osts
incu
rred
in su
bmitt
ing
obse
rvat
ions
to th
e Co
urt
othe
r tha
n th
e co
sts o
f tho
se p
artie
s a
re n
ot re
cove
rabl
ersquo
26 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
Mou
ssa
Sack
o v
Com
mis
sion
e Te
rrito
riale
per
il
ricon
osci
men
to
della
pro
tezi
one
inte
rnaz
iona
le d
i Mila
no
C-34
816
EUC
201
759
1
260
720
17
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
s 12
14
31
and
46ofD
irective20
1332EU
ofthe
Europ
eanParliam
enta
ndofthe
Cou
ncilof26 June
201
3on
com
mon
pr
oced
ures
for g
rant
ing
and
with
draw
ing
inte
rnat
iona
l pro
tect
ion
Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
2EU
mdash A
rtic
les 1
2 1
4 3
1 an
d 46
mdash C
hart
er o
f Fun
dam
enta
l Rig
hts o
f the
Eur
opea
n U
nion
mdash A
rtic
le 4
7 mdash
Rig
ht to
effe
ctiv
e ju
dici
al p
rote
ctio
n mdash
App
eal a
gain
st a
dec
ision
refu
sing
an
appl
icat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n mdash
Whe
ther
it is
pos
sible
for t
he c
ourt
to a
djud
icat
e w
ithou
t he
arin
g th
e ap
plic
ant
Para
s 3
1-49
lsquo31
It fo
llow
s tha
t the
cha
ract
erist
ics o
f the
rem
edy
prov
ided
for i
n Ar
ticle
46
of D
irect
ive
2013
32
mus
t be
dete
rmin
ed in
a m
anne
r tha
t is c
onsis
tent
with
Art
icle
47
of th
e Ch
arte
r w
hich
con
stitu
tes
a re
affir
mat
ion
of th
e pr
inci
ple
of e
ffect
ive
judi
cial
pro
tect
ion
(see
by
anal
ogy
with
refe
renc
e to
Art
icle
39
ofCou
ncilDirective20
0585EC
of1
Decem
ber2
005on
minim
umstan
dardso
nproced
uresin
Mem
ber
Stat
es fo
r gra
ntin
g an
d w
ithdr
awin
g re
fuge
e st
atus
lsquo32
The
prin
cipl
e of
effe
ctiv
e ju
dici
al p
rote
ctio
n of
the
right
s whi
ch in
divi
dual
s der
ive
from
EU
law
co
mpr
ises v
ario
us e
lem
ents
in
part
icul
ar t
he ri
ghts
of t
he d
efen
ce t
he p
rinci
ple
of e
qual
ity o
f arm
s th
e rig
ht o
f acc
ess t
o a
trib
unal
and
the
right
to b
e ad
vise
d d
efen
ded
and
repr
esen
ted
lsquo33
With
rega
rd f
irst
to th
e pr
ocee
ding
s at f
irst i
nsta
nce
cove
red
by C
hapt
er II
I of D
irect
ive
2013
32
it
shou
ld b
e re
calle
d th
at w
hen
the
auth
oriti
es o
f the
Mem
ber S
tate
s tak
e m
easu
res w
hich
com
e w
ithin
th
e sc
ope
of E
U la
w th
ey a
re a
s a ru
le s
ubje
ct to
the
oblig
atio
n to
obs
erve
the
right
s of d
efen
ce o
f ad
dres
sees
of d
ecisi
ons w
hich
sign
ifica
ntly
affe
ct th
eir i
nter
ests
lsquo34
In
part
icul
ar t
he C
ourt
has
hel
d th
at th
e rig
ht to
be
hear
d in
any
pro
cedu
re i
nher
ent i
n re
spec
t for
th
e rig
hts o
f the
def
ence
whi
ch is
a g
ener
al p
rinci
ple
of E
U la
w g
uara
ntee
s eve
ry p
erso
n th
e op
port
unity
to
mak
e kn
own
his v
iew
s effe
ctiv
ely
durin
g an
adm
inist
rativ
e pr
oced
ure
and
befo
re th
e ad
optio
n of
any
de
cisio
n lia
ble
to a
ffect
his
inte
rest
s adv
erse
ly
lsquo35
In th
at re
gard
the
pur
pose
of t
he ru
le th
at th
e ad
dres
see
of a
n ad
vers
e de
cisio
n m
ust b
e pl
aced
in
a po
sitio
n to
subm
it hi
s obs
erva
tions
bef
ore
that
dec
ision
is a
dopt
ed is
int
er a
lia t
o en
able
that
per
son
to
corr
ect a
n er
ror o
r sub
mit
such
info
rmat
ion
rela
ting
to h
is or
her
per
sona
l circ
umst
ance
s as w
ill a
rgue
in
favo
ur o
f the
ado
ptio
n or
non
-ado
ptio
n of
the
deci
sion
or i
n fa
vour
of i
ts h
avin
g a
spec
ific
cont
ent
Leso
ochr
anaacuter
ske
zosk
upen
ie V
LK
C-243158 Novem
ber
2016
MC-560149 Fe
bruary
2017
Berli
oz In
vest
men
t Fun
d
C-6821516 May2017
Tall
C-2
391
4
17 Decem
ber2
015
Otis
and
Oth
ers
C-199116 Novem
ber
2012
G an
d R
C-3
831
3
10 Sep
tembe
r2013
Boud
jlida
C-2
491
3
11 Decem
ber2
014
Muk
arub
ega
C-1
661
3
5 No
vembe
r2014
Sam
ba D
iouf
C-6
910
28 Ju
ly2011
Lebe
kC-70157 Ju
ly
2016
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 27
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo36
With
rega
rd o
n th
e ot
her h
and
to th
e ap
peal
s pro
cedu
res c
over
ed b
y Ch
apte
r V o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
2 in
ord
er fo
r the
righ
t to
a re
med
y to
be
exer
cise
d ef
fect
ivel
y th
e na
tiona
l cou
rt m
ust b
e ab
le
to re
view
the
mer
its o
f the
reas
ons w
hich
led
the
com
pete
nt a
dmin
istra
tive
auth
ority
to fi
nd th
at th
e ap
plic
atio
n fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
was
unf
ound
ed o
r mad
e in
bad
faith
lsquo37
In th
is in
stan
ce i
t sho
uld
be n
oted
that
failu
re to
giv
e th
e ap
plic
ant t
he o
ppor
tuni
ty to
be
hear
d in
an
app
eals
proc
edur
e su
ch a
s tha
t cov
ered
by
Chap
ter V
of D
irect
ive
2013
32
cons
titut
es a
rest
rictio
n of
the
right
s of t
he d
efen
ce w
hich
form
par
t of t
he p
rinci
ple
of e
ffect
ive
judi
cial
pro
tect
ion
ensh
rined
in
Artic
le 4
7 of
the
Char
ter
lsquo38
How
ever
acc
ordi
ng to
the
Cour
trsquos se
ttle
d ca
se-la
w fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts
such
as r
espe
ct fo
r the
rig
hts o
f the
def
ence
whi
ch in
clud
es th
e rig
ht to
be
hear
d d
o no
t con
stitu
te u
nfet
tere
d pr
erog
ativ
es
and
may
be
rest
ricte
d p
rovi
ded
that
the
rest
rictio
ns in
fact
cor
resp
ond
to o
bjec
tives
of g
ener
al in
tere
st
purs
ued
by th
e m
easu
re in
que
stio
n an
d th
at th
ey d
o no
t ent
ail
with
rega
rd to
the
obje
ctiv
es p
ursu
ed
a di
spro
port
iona
te a
nd in
tole
rabl
e in
terfe
renc
e w
hich
infr
inge
s upo
n th
e ve
ry su
bsta
nce
of th
e rig
hts
guar
ante
ed
lsquo39
An
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
the
right
to b
e he
ard
gua
rant
eed
by A
rtic
le 4
7 of
the
Char
ter
to th
e ef
fect
that
it
is no
t an
abso
lute
righ
t is c
onfir
med
by
the
case
-law
of t
he E
urop
ean
Cour
t of H
uman
Rig
hts
in th
e lig
ht
of w
hich
Art
icle
47
of th
e Ch
arte
r mus
t be
inte
rpre
ted
as t
he fi
rst a
nd se
cond
par
agra
phs o
f tha
t art
icle
co
rres
pond
to A
rtic
le 6
(1) a
nd A
rtic
le 1
3 of
the
Euro
pean
Con
vent
ion
for t
he P
rote
ctio
n of
Hum
an R
ight
s an
dFu
ndam
entalFreed
omss
igne
dinRom
eon
4 Novem
ber1
950
lsquo40
In
that
rega
rd t
he C
ourt
has
pre
viou
sly st
ated
that
Art
icle
6(1
) of t
hat c
onve
ntio
n do
es n
ot im
pose
an
abso
lute
obl
igat
ion
to h
old
a pu
blic
hea
ring
and
does
not
nec
essa
rily
requ
ire th
at a
hea
ring
be h
eld
in a
ll pr
ocee
ding
s It
has
hel
d si
mila
rly t
hat n
eith
er th
e se
cond
par
agra
ph o
f Art
icle
47
of th
e Ch
arte
r nor
any
ot
her p
rovi
sion
ther
eof i
mpo
ses s
uch
an o
blig
atio
n
lsquo41
Fur
ther
mor
e th
e Co
urt h
as a
lso h
eld
that
the
ques
tion
whe
ther
ther
e is
an in
frin
gem
ent o
f the
righ
ts
of th
e de
fenc
e an
d th
e rig
ht to
effe
ctiv
e ju
dici
al p
rote
ctio
n m
ust b
e ex
amin
ed in
rela
tion
to th
e sp
ecifi
c ci
rcum
stan
ces o
f eac
h ca
se i
nclu
ding
the
natu
re o
f the
act
at i
ssue
the
con
text
in w
hich
it w
as a
dopt
ed
and
the
lega
l rul
es g
over
ning
the
mat
ter i
n qu
estio
n
Tom
a an
d Bi
roul
Ex
ecut
orul
ui
Judecătoresc Horațiu-
Vasil
e Cr
udul
eci
C-2051530 June
2016
Ande
chse
r Mol
kere
i Sc
heitz
v C
omm
issio
n
C-68
213
P n
ot
publish
ed4 Ju
ne2015
(in F
renc
h)
ECtH
R Ju
ssila
v
Finl
andno 7305301
23 Novem
ber2
006
Com
miss
ion
and
Oth
ers
v Ka
di C
-584
10
P C-
593
10 P
and
C-59510P18 July2013
ECtH
R D
oumlry
v Sw
eden
no
2839495
12 Novem
ber2
002
28 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo42
In th
is in
stan
ce t
he o
blig
atio
n im
pose
d in
Art
icle
46(
3) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
2 on
the
cour
t with
ju
risdi
ctio
n to
ens
ure
that
a fu
ll an
d ex
nun
c ex
amin
atio
n of
bot
h fa
cts a
nd p
oint
s of l
aw is
con
duct
ed
mus
t be
inte
rpre
ted
in th
e co
ntex
t of t
he p
roce
dure
for t
he e
xam
inat
ion
of a
pplic
atio
ns fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pr
otec
tion
as a
who
le a
s gov
erne
d by
that
dire
ctiv
e ta
king
into
acc
ount
the
clos
e lin
k be
twee
n ap
peal
pr
ocee
ding
s bef
ore
a co
urt o
r trib
unal
and
the
proc
eedi
ngs a
t firs
t ins
tanc
e pr
eced
ing
thos
e pr
ocee
ding
s
durin
g w
hich
the
appl
ican
t mus
t be
give
n th
e op
port
unity
of a
per
sona
l int
ervi
ew o
n hi
s or h
er a
pplic
atio
n fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
as r
equi
red
by A
rtic
le 1
4 of
the
dire
ctiv
e
lsquo43
It sh
ould
be
note
d in
that
rega
rd th
at a
s the
repo
rt o
r tra
nscr
ipt o
f any
per
sona
l int
ervi
ew w
ith a
n ap
plic
ant m
ust
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith A
rtic
le 1
7(2)
of D
irect
ive
2013
32
be
avai
labl
e in
con
nect
ion
with
the
appl
ican
trsquos fi
le t
he c
onte
nt o
f the
repo
rt o
r tra
nscr
ipt i
s an
impo
rtan
t fac
tor i
n th
e as
sess
men
t by
the
cour
t with
juris
dict
ion
whe
n it
carr
ies o
ut th
e fu
ll an
d ex
nun
c ex
amin
atio
n of
bot
h fa
cts a
nd p
oint
s of l
aw
requ
ired
unde
r Art
icle
46(
3) o
f the
dire
ctiv
e
lsquo44
It fo
llow
s a
s the
Adv
ocat
e Ge
nera
l obs
erve
d in
poi
nts 5
8 5
9 an
d 65
to 6
7 of
his
Opi
nion
tha
t w
heth
er it
is n
eces
sary
for t
he c
ourt
or t
ribun
al h
earin
g th
e ap
peal
pro
vide
d fo
r in
Artic
le 4
6 of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
2 to
gra
nt th
e ap
plic
ant a
hea
ring
has t
o be
ass
esse
d in
the
light
of i
ts o
blig
atio
n to
car
ry o
ut th
e fu
ll an
d ex
nun
c ex
amin
atio
n re
quire
d un
der A
rtic
le 4
6(3)
of t
he d
irect
ive
in th
e in
tere
sts o
f effe
ctiv
e ju
dici
al p
rote
ctio
n of
the
right
s and
inte
rest
s of t
he a
pplic
ant
It is
only
if th
at c
ourt
or t
ribun
al c
onsid
ers
that
it is
in a
pos
ition
to c
arry
out
such
an
exam
inat
ion
sole
ly o
n th
e ba
sis o
f the
info
rmat
ion
in th
e ca
se-
file
incl
udin
g w
here
app
licab
le t
he re
port
or t
rans
crip
t of t
he p
erso
nal i
nter
view
with
the
appl
ican
t in
the
proc
edur
e at
firs
t ins
tanc
e th
at it
may
dec
ide
not t
o he
ar th
e ap
plic
ant i
n th
e ap
peal
bef
ore
it In
such
ci
rcum
stan
ces
the
poss
ibili
ty o
f not
hol
ding
a h
earin
g is
in th
e in
tere
st o
f bot
h th
e M
embe
r Sta
tes a
nd
appl
ican
ts a
s ref
erre
d to
in re
cita
l 18
of D
irect
ive
2013
32
to h
ave
a de
cisio
n m
ade
as so
on a
s pos
sible
on
app
licat
ions
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n w
ithou
t pre
judi
ce to
an
adeq
uate
and
com
plet
e ex
amin
atio
n be
ing
carr
ied
out
lsquo45
On
the
othe
r han
d if
the
cour
t or t
ribun
al h
earin
g th
e ap
peal
con
sider
s tha
t the
app
lican
t mus
t be
affo
rded
a h
earin
g in
ord
er to
car
ry o
ut th
e fu
ll an
d ex
nun
c ex
amin
atio
n re
quire
d th
at h
earin
g a
s or
dere
d by
that
cou
rt o
r trib
unal
con
stitu
tes a
n es
sent
ial p
roce
dura
l req
uire
men
t w
hich
can
not b
e di
spen
sed
with
on
grou
nds o
f spe
ed a
s ref
erre
d to
in re
cita
l 20
of D
irect
ive
2013
32
As t
he A
dvoc
ate
Gene
ral o
bser
ved
in p
oint
67
of h
is O
pini
on a
lthou
gh th
at re
cita
l allo
ws M
embe
r Sta
tes t
o ac
cele
rate
the
exam
inat
ion
proc
edur
e in
cer
tain
cas
es i
nter
alia
whe
re a
n ap
plic
atio
n is
likel
y to
be
unfo
unde
d it
doe
s no
t aut
horis
e th
e el
imin
atio
n of
pro
cedu
res w
hich
are
ess
entia
l in
orde
r to
guar
ante
e th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
righ
t to
effe
ctiv
e ju
dici
al p
rote
ctio
n
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 29
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo46
In th
e ca
se o
f a m
anife
stly
unf
ound
ed a
pplic
atio
n w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 3
2(2)
of D
irect
ive
2013
32
such
as t
he a
pplic
atio
n in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s th
e ob
ligat
ion
for t
he c
ourt
or t
ribun
al to
ca
rry
out t
he fu
ll an
d ex
nun
c ex
amin
atio
n re
ferr
ed to
in A
rtic
le 4
6(3)
of t
he d
irect
ive
is in
prin
cipl
e
fulfi
lled
whe
re th
at c
ourt
or t
ribun
al ta
kes i
nto
cons
ider
atio
n th
e pl
eadi
ngs s
ubm
itted
to th
e co
urt o
r tr
ibun
al se
ised
of th
e ap
plic
atio
n an
d of
the
obje
ctiv
e in
form
atio
n co
ntai
ned
in th
e ad
min
istra
tive
file
in th
e pr
ocee
ding
s at f
irst i
nsta
nce
incl
udin
g w
here
app
licab
le t
he re
port
or r
ecor
ding
of t
he p
erso
nal
inte
rvie
w c
ondu
cted
in th
ose
proc
eedi
ngs
lsquo47
Tha
t con
clus
ion
is su
ppor
ted
by th
e ca
se-la
w o
f the
Eur
opea
n Co
urt o
f Hum
an R
ight
s to
the
effe
ct
that
ther
e is
no n
eed
for a
hea
ring
whe
re th
e ca
se d
oes n
ot ra
ise a
ny q
uest
ions
of f
act o
r law
that
can
not
be a
dequ
atel
y re
solv
ed b
y re
ferr
ing
to th
e fil
e an
d th
e w
ritte
n su
bmiss
ions
of t
he p
artie
s
lsquo48
Mor
eove
r w
hile
Art
icle
46
of D
irect
ive
2013
32
does
not
requ
ire a
cou
rt o
r trib
unal
hea
ring
an
appe
al a
gain
st a
dec
ision
reje
ctin
g an
app
licat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n to
hea
r the
app
lican
t in
all c
ircum
stan
ces
it d
oes n
ot n
onet
hele
ss a
utho
rise
the
natio
nal l
egisl
atur
e to
pre
vent
that
cou
rt o
r tr
ibun
al o
rder
ing
that
a h
earin
g be
hel
d w
here
hav
ing
foun
d th
at th
e in
form
atio
n ga
ther
ed d
urin
g th
e pe
rson
al in
terv
iew
con
duct
ed in
the
proc
edur
e at
firs
t ins
tanc
e is
insu
ffici
ent
it co
nsid
ers i
t nec
essa
ry to
co
nduc
t a h
earin
g to
ens
ure
that
ther
e is
a fu
ll an
d ex
nun
c ex
amin
atio
n of
bot
h fa
cts a
nd p
oint
s of l
aw a
s re
quire
d un
der A
rtic
le 4
6(3)
of t
he d
irect
ive
lsquo49
In th
e lig
ht o
f the
fore
goin
g co
nsid
erat
ions
Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
2 in
par
ticul
ar A
rtic
les 1
2 1
4 3
1 an
d 46
th
ereo
f re
ad in
the
light
of A
rtic
le 4
7 of
the
Char
ter
mus
t be
inte
rpre
ted
as n
ot p
recl
udin
g th
e na
tiona
l co
urt o
r trib
unal
hea
ring
an a
ppea
l aga
inst
a d
ecisi
on re
ject
ing
a m
anife
stly
unf
ound
ed a
pplic
atio
n fo
r in
tern
atio
nal p
rote
ctio
n fr
om d
ismiss
ing
the
appe
al w
ithou
t hea
ring
the
appl
ican
t whe
re th
e fa
ctua
l ci
rcum
stan
ces l
eave
no
doub
t as t
o w
heth
er th
at d
ecisi
on w
as w
ell f
ound
ed o
n co
nditi
on th
at f
irst
durin
g th
e pr
ocee
ding
s at f
irst i
nsta
nce
the
appl
ican
t was
giv
en th
e op
port
unity
of a
per
sona
l int
ervi
ew
on h
is or
her
app
licat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n in
acc
orda
nce
with
Art
icle
14
of th
e di
rect
ive
and
th
e re
port
or t
rans
crip
t of t
he in
terv
iew
if a
n in
terv
iew
was
con
duct
ed w
as p
lace
d on
the
case
-file
in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith A
rtic
le 1
7(2)
of t
he d
irect
ive
and
sec
ond
the
cour
t hea
ring
the
appe
al m
ay o
rder
that
a
hear
ing
be c
ondu
cted
if it
con
sider
s it n
eces
sary
for t
he p
urpo
se o
f ens
urin
g th
at th
ere
is a
full
and
ex
nunc
exa
min
atio
n of
bot
h fa
cts a
nd p
oint
s of l
aw a
s req
uire
d un
der A
rtic
le 4
6(3)
of t
he d
irect
ive
rsquo
30 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
F v
Bevaacute
ndor
laacutesi
eacutes
Aacutella
mpo
lgaacuter
saacutegi
Hiv
atal
C-47
316
EUC
201
836
250
120
18
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ns th
e in
terp
reta
tion
of A
rtic
le 1
of t
he C
hart
er
of F
unda
men
tal R
ight
s of t
he E
urop
ean
Uni
on a
nd A
rtic
le 4
of D
irect
ive
2011
95
EU o
f the
Eur
opea
n Parliam
enta
ndofthe
Cou
ncilof13 De
cembe
r201
1on
stan
dardsforth
equ
alificatio
nofth
ird-cou
ntry
natio
nals
or st
atel
ess p
erso
ns a
s ben
efic
iarie
s of i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n fo
r a u
nifo
rm st
atus
for r
efug
ees
or fo
r per
sons
elig
ible
for s
ubsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
and
for t
he c
onte
nt o
f the
pro
tect
ion
gran
ted
Char
ter o
f Fun
dam
enta
l Rig
hts o
f the
Eur
opea
n U
nion
mdash A
rtic
le 7
mdash R
espe
ct fo
r priv
ate
and
fam
ily li
fe mdash
Di
rect
ive
2011
95
EU mdash
Sta
ndar
ds fo
r gra
ntin
g re
fuge
e st
atus
or s
ubsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
stat
us mdash
Fea
r of
pers
ecut
ion
on g
roun
ds o
f sex
ual o
rient
atio
n mdash
Art
icle
4 mdash
Ass
essm
ent o
f fac
ts a
nd c
ircum
stan
ces mdash
Re
cour
se to
an
expe
rtrsquos
repo
rt mdash
Psy
chol
ogic
al te
sts
Para
22
lsquo22Byde
cisio
nof1 Octob
er201
5th
eOfficere
jected
Frsquosap
plicationfora
sylumInthatre
gardalth
ough
it
cons
ider
ed th
at F
rsquos st
atem
ents
wer
e no
t fun
dam
enta
lly c
ontr
adic
tory
it n
onet
hele
ss c
oncl
uded
that
F
lack
ed c
redi
bilit
y on
the
basis
of a
n ex
pert
rsquos re
port
pre
pare
d by
a p
sych
olog
ist T
hat e
xper
trsquos re
port
en
taile
d an
exp
lora
tory
exa
min
atio
n a
n ex
amin
atio
n of
per
sona
lity
and
seve
ral p
erso
nalit
y te
sts
nam
ely
the
lsquoDra
w-A
-Per
son-
In-T
he-R
ainrsquo
test
and
the
Rors
chac
h an
d Sz
ondi
test
s a
nd c
oncl
uded
that
it w
as n
ot
poss
ible
to c
onfir
m F
rsquos as
sert
ion
rela
ting
to h
is se
xual
orie
ntat
ion
rsquo
Para
33
lsquo33
Tha
t sai
d it
mus
t be
note
d th
at A
rtic
le 4
(3) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
119
5 lis
ts th
e fa
ctor
s whi
ch th
e co
mpe
tent
au
thor
ities
mus
t tak
e in
to a
ccou
nt d
urin
g th
e in
divi
dual
ass
essm
ent o
f an
appl
icat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal
prot
ectio
n an
d th
at A
rtic
le 4
(5) o
f tha
t dire
ctiv
e sp
ecifi
es th
e co
nditi
ons u
nder
whi
ch a
Mem
ber S
tate
ap
plyi
ng th
e pr
inci
ple
that
it is
the
duty
of t
he a
pplic
ant t
o su
bsta
ntia
te h
is ap
plic
atio
n m
ust c
onsid
er
that
cer
tain
asp
ects
of t
he a
pplic
antrsquos
stat
emen
ts d
o no
t req
uire
con
firm
atio
n T
hose
con
ditio
ns in
clud
e
in p
artic
ular
the
fact
that
the
appl
ican
trsquos st
atem
ents
are
foun
d to
be
cohe
rent
and
pla
usib
le a
nd d
o no
t ru
n co
unte
r to
avai
labl
e sp
ecifi
c an
d ge
nera
l inf
orm
atio
n re
leva
nt to
his
case
as w
ell a
s the
fact
that
the
appl
ican
trsquos g
ener
al c
redi
bilit
y ha
s bee
n es
tabl
ished
rsquo
Para
35
lsquo35
Nev
erth
eles
s th
e pr
oced
ures
sho
uld
reco
urse
be
had
in th
at c
onte
xt t
o an
exp
ertrsquos
repo
rt m
ust b
e co
nsist
ent w
ith o
ther
rele
vant
EU
law
pro
visio
ns a
nd in
par
ticul
ar w
ith th
e fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts g
uara
ntee
d by
the
Char
ter
such
as t
he ri
ght t
o re
spec
t for
hum
an d
igni
ty e
nshr
ined
in A
rtic
le 1
of t
he C
hart
er a
nd
the
right
to re
spec
t for
priv
ate
and
fam
ily li
fe g
uara
ntee
d by
Art
icle
7 th
ereo
frsquo
A an
d O
ther
s C-
148
13 to
C-1
501
3
2 De
cembe
r2014
X an
d O
ther
s C-
199
12 to
C-2
011
2
7 No
vembe
r2013
Shep
herd
C-4
721
3
26 Fe
bruary2015
MC-560149 Fe
bruary
2017
Tem
pelm
an a
nd va
n Sc
haijk
C-9
603
and
C-970310 March2005
CHEZ
Raz
pred
elen
ie
Bulg
aria
C-8
314
16 Ju
ly2015
N C
-601
15
PPU
15 Fe
bruary2016
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 31
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
41
lsquo41
It is
app
aren
t se
cond
ly fr
om A
rtic
le 4
of t
hat d
irect
ive
that
the
exam
inat
ion
of th
e ap
plic
atio
n fo
r in
tern
atio
nal p
rote
ctio
n m
ust i
nclu
de a
n in
divi
dual
ass
essm
ent o
f tha
t app
licat
ion
taki
ng in
to a
ccou
nt
inte
r alia
all
rele
vant
fact
s as t
hey
rela
te to
the
coun
try
of o
rigin
of t
he a
pplic
ant a
t the
tim
e of
taki
ng
a de
cisio
n on
the
appl
icat
ion
the
rele
vant
stat
emen
ts a
nd d
ocum
enta
tion
pres
ente
d by
him
as w
ell a
s hi
s ind
ivid
ual p
ositi
on a
nd p
erso
nal c
ircum
stan
ces
Whe
re n
eces
sary
the
com
pete
nt a
utho
rity
mus
t also
ta
ke a
ccou
nt o
f the
exp
lana
tion
prov
ided
rega
rdin
g a
lack
of e
vide
nce
and
of t
he a
pplic
antrsquos
gen
eral
cr
edib
ility
rsquo
Para
46
lsquo46
In th
e lig
ht o
f tho
se c
onsid
erat
ions
the
ans
wer
to th
e se
cond
que
stio
n is
that
Art
icle
4 o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
119
5 m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
d as
mea
ning
that
it d
oes n
ot p
recl
ude
the
auth
ority
resp
onsib
le fo
r exa
min
ing
appl
icat
ions
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n o
r w
here
an
actio
n ha
s bee
n br
ough
t aga
inst
a d
ecisi
on o
f tha
t au
thor
ity t
he c
ourt
or t
ribun
al se
ised
from
ord
erin
g th
at a
n ex
pert
rsquos re
port
be
obta
ined
in th
e co
ntex
t of
the
asse
ssm
ent o
f the
fact
s and
circ
umst
ance
s rel
atin
g to
the
decl
ared
sexu
al o
rient
atio
n of
an
appl
ican
t pr
ovid
ed th
at th
e pr
oced
ures
for s
uch
arep
ort a
re c
onsis
tent
with
the
fund
amen
tal r
ight
s gua
rant
eed
by th
e Ch
arte
r th
at th
at a
utho
rity
and
thos
e co
urts
or t
ribun
als d
o no
t bas
e th
eir d
ecisi
on so
lely
on
the
conc
lusio
ns o
f the
exp
ertrsquos
repo
rt a
nd th
at th
ey a
re n
ot b
ound
by
thos
e co
nclu
sions
whe
n as
sess
ing
the
appl
ican
trsquos st
atem
ents
rela
ting
to h
is se
xual
orie
ntat
ion
rsquo
Para
54
lsquo54
In th
ose
circ
umst
ance
s a
s the
Adv
ocat
e Ge
nera
l not
ed in
poi
nt 4
3 of
his
Opi
nion
the
pre
para
tion
and
use
of a
psy
chol
ogist
rsquos ex
pert
repo
rt su
ch a
s tha
t at i
ssue
in th
e m
ain
proc
eedi
ngs c
onst
itute
s an
inte
rfere
nce
with
that
per
sonrsquo
s rig
ht to
resp
ect f
or h
is pr
ivat
e lif
ersquo
Para
58
lsquo58
In th
is re
spec
t it
shou
ld b
e no
ted
that
the
suita
bilit
y of
an
expe
rtrsquos
repo
rt su
ch a
s tha
t at i
ssue
in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s may
be
acce
pted
onl
y if
it is
base
d on
suffi
cien
tly re
liabl
e m
etho
ds a
nd p
rinci
ples
in
the
light
of t
he st
anda
rds r
ecog
nise
d by
the
inte
rnat
iona
l sci
entif
ic c
omm
unity
It s
houl
d be
not
ed in
th
at re
gard
that
alth
ough
it is
not
for t
he C
ourt
to ru
le o
n th
is iss
ue w
hich
is a
s an
asse
ssm
ent o
f the
fa
cts
a m
atte
r with
in th
e na
tiona
l cou
rtrsquos
juris
dict
ion
the
relia
bilit
y of
such
an
expe
rtrsquos
repo
rt h
as b
een
vigo
rous
ly c
onte
sted
by
the
Fren
ch a
nd N
ethe
rland
s Gov
ernm
ents
as w
ell a
s by
the
Com
miss
ion
rsquo
32 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
62
lsquo62
It is
also
nec
essa
ry to
take
acc
ount
in
orde
r to
asse
ss th
e se
rious
ness
of t
he in
terfe
renc
e ar
ising
from
th
e pr
epar
atio
n an
d us
e of
a p
sych
olog
istrsquos
expe
rt re
port
suc
h as
that
at i
ssue
in th
e m
ain
proc
eedi
ngs
of
Prin
cipl
e 18
of t
he Y
ogya
kart
a pr
inci
ples
on
the
appl
icat
ion
of In
tern
atio
nal H
uman
Rig
hts L
aw in
rela
tion
to S
exua
l Orie
ntat
ion
and
Gend
er Id
entit
y to
whi
ch th
e Fr
ench
and
Net
herla
nds G
over
nmen
ts h
ave
refe
rred
whi
ch st
ates
int
er a
lia t
hat n
o pe
rson
may
be
forc
ed to
und
ergo
any
form
of p
sych
olog
ical
test
on
acc
ount
of h
is se
xual
orie
ntat
ion
or g
ende
r ide
ntity
rsquo
Para
66
lsquo66
On
the
one
hand
the
car
ryin
g ou
t of a
per
sona
l int
ervi
ew c
ondu
cted
by
the
pers
onne
l of t
he
dete
rmin
ing
auth
ority
is su
ch a
s to
cont
ribut
e to
the
asse
ssm
ent o
f tho
se st
atem
ents
ina
smuc
h as
bot
h Ar
ticle
13(
3)(a
) of D
irect
ive
2005
85
and
Artic
le 1
5(3)
(a) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
2 pr
ovid
e th
at th
e M
embe
r St
ates
mus
t ens
ure
that
the
pers
on w
ho c
ondu
cts t
he in
terv
iew
is c
ompe
tent
to ta
ke a
ccou
nt o
f the
pe
rson
al c
ircum
stan
ces s
urro
undi
ng th
e ap
plic
atio
n th
ose
circ
umst
ance
s cov
erin
g in
par
ticul
ar th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
sexu
al o
rient
atio
nrsquo
Para
71
lsquo71
It fo
llow
s fro
m th
e fo
rego
ing
that
the
answ
er to
the
first
que
stio
n is
that
Art
icle
4 o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
119
5 re
ad in
the
light
of A
rtic
le 7
of t
he C
hart
er m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
d as
pre
clud
ing
the
prep
arat
ion
and
use
in o
rder
to a
sses
s the
ver
acity
of a
cla
im m
ade
by a
n ap
plic
ant f
or in
tern
atio
nal p
rote
ctio
n co
ncer
ning
his
sexu
al o
rient
atio
n o
f a p
sych
olog
istrsquos
expe
rt re
port
suc
h as
that
at i
ssue
in th
e m
ain
proc
eedi
ngs
the
purp
ose
of w
hich
is o
n th
e ba
sis o
f pro
ject
ive
pers
onal
ity te
sts
to p
rovi
de a
n in
dica
tion
of th
e se
xual
orie
ntat
ion
of th
at a
pplic
antrsquo
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 33
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
A an
d S
v St
aats
secr
etar
is v
an
Veili
ghei
d en
Just
itie
C-55
016
EUC
201
824
8
120
420
18
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ns th
e in
terp
reta
tion
of A
rtic
le 2
(f) o
f Cou
ncil
Directive20
0386EC
of2
2 Septem
ber2
003on
therig
htto
familyre
unificatio
n
Righ
t to
fam
ily re
unifi
catio
n mdash
Dire
ctiv
e 20
038
6EC
mdash D
efin
ition
of lsquo
unac
com
pani
ed m
inor
rsquo mdashRi
ght
of a
refu
gee
to fa
mily
reun
ifica
tion
with
his
pare
nts mdash
Ref
ugee
bel
ow th
e ag
e of
18
at th
e tim
e of
ent
ry
into
the
Mem
ber S
tate
and
at t
he ti
me
of a
pplic
atio
n fo
r asy
lum
but
ove
r 18
at th
e tim
e of
the
deci
sion
gran
ting
asyl
um a
nd o
f his
appl
icat
ion
for f
amily
reun
ifica
tion
mdash R
elev
ant d
ate
for a
sses
sing
lsquomin
orrsquo s
tatu
s of
the
pers
on c
once
rned
Para
34
lsquo34
Whe
reas
und
er A
rtic
le 4
(2)(a
) of D
irect
ive
2003
86
the
poss
ibili
ty o
f suc
h re
unifi
catio
n is
in
prin
cipl
e le
ft to
the
disc
retio
n of
eac
h M
embe
r Sta
te a
nd su
bjec
t in
par
ticul
ar t
o th
e co
nditi
on th
at fi
rst-
degr
ee re
lativ
es in
the
dire
ct a
scen
ding
line
are
dep
ende
nt u
pon
the
spon
sor a
nd d
o no
t enj
oy p
rope
r fa
mily
supp
ort i
n th
e co
untr
y of
orig
in A
rtic
le 1
0(3)
(a) o
f tha
t dire
ctiv
e la
ys d
own
by
way
of e
xcep
tion
to th
at p
rinci
ple
a ri
ght t
o su
ch re
unifi
catio
n fo
r ref
ugee
s who
are
una
ccom
pani
ed m
inor
s whi
ch is
no
t sub
ject
to a
mar
gin
of d
iscre
tion
on th
e pa
rt o
f the
Mem
ber S
tate
s nor
to c
ondi
tions
laid
dow
n in
Ar
ticle
4(2
)(a)rsquo
Para
44
lsquo44
Fin
ally
Dire
ctiv
e 20
038
6 pu
rsue
s not
onl
y in
a g
ener
al w
ay t
he o
bjec
tive
of p
rom
otin
g fa
mily
re
unifi
catio
n an
d gr
antin
g pr
otec
tion
to th
ird-c
ount
ry n
atio
nals
in p
artic
ular
min
ors (
see
to th
at e
ffect
judg
men
tof6
Decem
ber2
012O
and
Oth
ers
C-3
561
1 an
d C-
357
11 E
UC
201
277
6 p
arag
raph
69)
but
by
Art
icle
10(
3)(a
) the
reof
see
ks sp
ecifi
cally
to g
uara
ntee
an
addi
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
for t
hose
refu
gees
who
ar
e un
acco
mpa
nied
min
orsrsquo
Para
55
lsquo55
In th
ose
circ
umst
ance
s to
mak
e th
e rig
ht to
fam
ily re
unifi
catio
n un
der A
rtic
le 1
0(3)
(a) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
038
6 de
pend
upo
n th
e m
omen
t at w
hich
the
com
pete
nt n
atio
nal a
utho
rity
form
ally
ado
pts t
he
deci
sion
reco
gnisi
ng th
e re
fuge
e st
atus
of t
he p
erso
n co
ncer
ned
and
ther
efor
e o
n ho
w q
uick
ly o
r slo
wly
th
e ap
plic
atio
n fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
is pr
oces
sed
by th
at a
utho
rity
wou
ld c
all i
nto
ques
tion
the
effe
ctiv
enes
s of t
hat p
rovi
sion
and
wou
ld g
o ag
ains
t not
onl
y th
e ai
m o
f tha
t dire
ctiv
e w
hich
is to
pr
omot
e fa
mily
reun
ifica
tion
and
to g
rant
in th
at re
gard
a sp
ecifi
c pr
otec
tion
to re
fuge
es i
n pa
rtic
ular
un
acco
mpa
nied
min
ors
but
also
the
prin
cipl
es o
f equ
al tr
eatm
ent a
nd le
gal c
erta
inty
rsquo
Ouh
ram
i C-
225
16
26 Ju
ly2017
O a
nd O
ther
s C-
356
11
and
C-35
711
6 De
cembe
r2012
Noor
zia C
-338
13
17 Ju
ly2014
HTC-3731324 June
20
15
34 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
58
lsquo58
Mor
eove
r in
stea
d of
pro
mpt
ing
natio
nal a
utho
ritie
s to
trea
t app
licat
ions
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n fr
om u
nacc
ompa
nied
min
ors u
rgen
tly in
ord
er to
take
acc
ount
of t
heir
part
icul
ar v
ulne
rabi
lity
a p
ossib
ility
w
hich
is a
lread
y ex
plic
itly
offe
red
by A
rtic
le 3
1(7)
(b) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
2 su
ch a
n in
terp
reta
tion
coul
d ha
ve th
e op
posit
e ef
fect
fru
stra
ting
the
obje
ctiv
e pu
rsue
d bo
th b
y th
at d
irect
ive
and
by D
irect
ives
20
038
6 an
d 20
119
5 of
ens
urin
g th
at i
n ac
cord
ance
with
Art
icle
24(
2) o
f the
Cha
rter
of F
unda
men
tal
Righ
ts t
he b
est i
nter
ests
of t
he c
hild
is in
pra
ctic
e a
prim
ary
cons
ider
atio
n fo
r Mem
ber S
tate
s in
the
appl
icat
ion
of th
ose
dire
ctiv
esrsquo
Para
64
lsquo64
In th
e lig
ht o
f all
the
fore
goin
g th
e an
swer
to th
e qu
estio
n re
ferr
ed is
that
Art
icle
2(f)
of D
irect
ive
2003
86
read
in c
onju
nctio
n w
ith A
rtic
le 1
0(3)
(a) t
here
of m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
d as
mea
ning
that
a th
ird-
coun
try
natio
nal o
r sta
tele
ss p
erso
n w
ho is
bel
ow th
e ag
e of
18
at th
e m
omen
t of h
is or
her
ent
ry in
to th
e te
rrito
ry o
f a M
embe
r Sta
te a
nd o
f the
intr
oduc
tion
of h
is or
her
asy
lum
app
licat
ion
in th
at S
tate
but
who
in
the
cour
se o
f the
asy
lum
pro
cedu
re a
ttai
ns th
e ag
e of
maj
ority
and
is th
erea
fter g
rant
ed re
fuge
e st
atus
m
ust b
e re
gard
ed a
s a lsquom
inor
rsquo for
the
purp
oses
of t
hat p
rovi
sion
rsquo
CJEU
[GC]
MP
v Se
cret
ary
of
Stat
e fo
r the
Hom
e De
part
men
t
C-35
316
EUC
201
827
6
240
420
18
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
s 2(e
) and
15(
b)
ofCou
ncilDirective20
0483EC
of2
9 Ap
ril200
4on
minim
umstan
dardsforth
equ
alificatio
nan
dstatusof
third
cou
ntry
nat
iona
ls or
stat
eles
s per
sons
as r
efug
ees o
r as p
erso
ns w
ho o
ther
wise
nee
d in
tern
atio
nal
prot
ectio
n an
d th
e co
nten
t of t
he p
rote
ctio
n gr
ante
d
Asyl
um p
olic
y mdash
Cha
rter
of F
unda
men
tal R
ight
s of t
he E
urop
ean
Uni
on mdash
Art
icle
4 mdash
Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3EC
mdash A
rtic
le 2
(e) mdash
Elig
ibili
ty fo
r sub
sidia
ry p
rote
ctio
n mdash
Art
icle
15(
b) mdash
Risk
of s
erio
us h
arm
to th
e ps
ycho
logi
cal h
ealth
of t
he a
pplic
ant i
f ret
urne
d to
the
coun
try
of o
rigin
mdash P
erso
n w
ho h
as b
een
tort
ured
in
the
coun
try
of o
rigin
Para
30
lsquo30
In th
at c
onte
xt i
t mus
t firs
t be
poin
ted
out t
hat t
he fa
ct th
at th
e pe
rson
con
cern
ed h
as in
the
past
be
en to
rtur
ed b
y th
e au
thor
ities
of h
is co
untr
y of
orig
in is
not
in it
self
suffi
cien
t jus
tific
atio
n fo
r him
to b
e el
igib
le fo
r sub
sidia
ry p
rote
ctio
n w
hen
ther
e is
no lo
nger
a re
al ri
sk th
at su
ch to
rtur
e w
ill b
e re
peat
ed if
he
is re
turn
ed to
that
cou
ntry
rsquo
Moh
amed
MrsquoB
odj
v Eacutet
at b
elge
C-5421318 De
cembe
r20
14
Aranyosi an
d Că
ldăraru
C-
404
15 a
nd
C-65915PPU
5 April
2016
CK a
nd O
ther
s v
Repu
blika
Slo
veni
ja
C-57
816
PPU
16 Fe
bruary2017
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 35
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
s 3
6-58
lsquo36
In th
at re
gard
it s
houl
d be
reca
lled
that
Art
icle
15(
b) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3 m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
d an
d ap
plie
d in
a m
anne
r tha
t is c
onsis
tent
with
the
right
s gua
rant
eed
by A
rtic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
er o
f Fu
ndam
enta
l Rig
hts o
f the
Eur
opea
n U
nion
(lsquoth
e Ch
arte
rrsquo)
whi
ch e
nshr
ines
one
of t
he fu
ndam
enta
l va
lues
of t
he U
nion
and
its M
embe
r Sta
tes a
nd is
abs
olut
e in
that
that
val
ue is
clo
sely
link
ed to
resp
ect f
or
hum
an d
igni
ty t
he su
bjec
t of A
rtic
le 1
of t
he C
hart
er
lsquo37
Mor
eove
r it
shou
ld b
e re
calle
d th
at i
n ac
cord
ance
with
Art
icle
52(
3) o
f the
Cha
rter
in
so fa
r as
the
right
s gua
rant
eed
by A
rtic
le 4
ther
eof c
orre
spon
d to
thos
e gu
aran
teed
by
Artic
le 3
of t
he E
CHR
the
mea
ning
and
scop
e of
thos
e rig
hts a
re th
e sa
me
as th
ose
laid
dow
n by
Art
icle
3 o
f the
ECH
R
lsquo38
It f
ollo
ws f
rom
the
case
-law
of t
he E
urop
ean
Cour
t of H
uman
Rig
hts r
elat
ing
to A
rtic
le 3
of t
he E
CHR
that
the
suffe
ring
caus
ed b
y a
natu
rally
occ
urrin
g ill
ness
whe
ther
phy
sical
or m
enta
l m
ay b
e co
vere
d by
that
art
icle
if it
is o
r risk
s bei
ng e
xace
rbat
ed b
y tr
eatm
ent
whe
ther
resu
lting
from
con
ditio
ns o
f de
tent
ion
rem
oval
or o
ther
mea
sure
s fo
r whi
ch th
e au
thor
ities
can
be
held
resp
onsib
le p
rovi
ded
that
th
e re
sulti
ng su
fferin
g at
tain
s the
min
imum
leve
l of s
ever
ity re
quire
d by
that
art
icle
lsquo39
Pur
suan
t to
the
case
-law
of t
he E
urop
ean
Cour
t of H
uman
Rig
hts
the
sam
e th
resh
old
of se
verit
y m
ust b
e m
et in
ord
er fo
r Art
icle
3 o
f the
ECH
R to
pre
clud
e th
e de
port
atio
n of
a p
erso
n w
hose
illn
ess i
s no
t nat
ural
ly o
ccur
ring
whe
re th
e la
ck o
f car
e th
at w
ould
be
avai
labl
e to
that
per
son
onc
e ex
pelle
d is
not
at
trib
utab
le to
inte
ntio
nal a
cts o
r om
issio
ns o
f the
rece
ivin
g St
ate
lsquo40
As r
egar
ds s
peci
fical
ly th
e th
resh
old
of se
verit
y fo
r fin
ding
a v
iola
tion
of A
rtic
le 3
of t
he E
CHR
it
follo
ws f
rom
the
mos
t rec
ent c
ase-
law
of t
he E
urop
ean
Cour
t of H
uman
Rig
hts t
hat t
hat p
rovi
sion
prec
lude
s the
rem
oval
of a
serio
usly
ill p
erso
n w
here
he
is at
risk
of i
mm
inen
t dea
th o
r whe
re su
bsta
ntia
l gr
ound
s hav
e be
en sh
own
for b
elie
ving
that
alth
ough
not
at i
mm
inen
t risk
of d
ying
he
wou
ld fa
ce a
real
ris
k o
n ac
coun
t of t
he a
bsen
ce o
f app
ropr
iate
trea
tmen
t in
the
rece
ivin
g co
untr
y or
the
lack
of a
cces
s to
such
trea
tmen
t of
suffe
ring
a se
rious
rap
id a
nd ir
reve
rsib
le d
eclin
e in
his
stat
e of
hea
lth re
sulti
ng in
in
tens
e su
fferin
g or
to a
sign
ifica
nt re
duct
ion
in li
fe e
xpec
tanc
y
ECtH
R P
apos
hvili
v
Belg
ium
no 4173810
13 Decem
ber2
016
ECtH
R [G
C] S
HH
v Un
ited
King
dom
no
603671029 Janu
ary
2013
Abdi
da C
-562
13
18 Decem
ber2
014
36 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo41
Sim
ilarly
Art
icle
4 o
f the
Cha
rter
mus
t be
inte
rpre
ted
as m
eani
ng th
at th
e re
mov
al o
f a th
ird
coun
try
natio
nal w
ith a
par
ticul
arly
serio
us m
enta
l or p
hysic
al il
lnes
s con
stitu
tes i
nhum
an a
nd
degr
adin
g tr
eatm
ent
with
in th
e m
eani
ng o
f tha
t art
icle
whe
re su
ch re
mov
al w
ould
resu
lt in
a re
al
and
dem
onst
rabl
e ris
k of
sign
ifica
nt a
nd p
erm
anen
t det
erio
ratio
n in
the
stat
e of
hea
lth o
f the
pe
rson
con
cerned
(see
byan
alog
yjudg
men
tof1
6 Februa
ry201
7C
K a
nd O
ther
s C
-578
16
PPU
EU
C2
017
127
par
agra
ph 7
4) T
he sa
me
conc
lusio
n ca
n be
dra
wn
as re
gard
s the
app
licat
ion
of
Artic
le 1
9(2)
of t
he C
hart
er w
hich
pro
vide
s tha
t no
one
may
be
rem
oved
to a
Sta
te w
here
ther
e is
a se
rious
risk
that
he
wou
ld b
e su
bjec
ted
to in
hum
an o
r deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent
lsquo42
In
that
rega
rd t
he C
ourt
has
hel
d th
at p
artic
ular
ly in
the
case
of a
serio
us p
sych
iatr
ic il
lnes
s it
is
not s
uffic
ient
to c
onsid
er o
nly
the
cons
eque
nces
of p
hysic
ally
tran
spor
ting
the
pers
on c
once
rned
from
a
Mem
ber S
tate
to a
third
cou
ntry
rat
her
it is
nece
ssar
y to
con
sider
all
the
signi
fican
t and
per
man
ent
conseq
uencesth
atm
ightarisefrom
theremoval(see
byan
alog
yjudg
men
tof1
6 Februa
ry201
7C
K
and
Oth
ers
C-5
781
6 PP
U E
UC
201
712
7 p
arag
raph
76)
Mor
eove
r gi
ven
the
fund
amen
tal i
mpo
rtan
ce
of th
e pr
ohib
ition
of t
ortu
re a
nd in
hum
an o
r deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent l
aid
dow
n in
Art
icle
4 o
f the
Cha
rter
pa
rtic
ular
att
entio
n m
ust b
e pa
id to
the
spec
ific
vuln
erab
ilitie
s of p
erso
ns w
hose
psy
chol
ogic
al su
fferin
g
whi
ch is
like
ly to
be
exac
erba
ted
in th
e ev
ent o
f the
ir re
mov
al i
s a c
onse
quen
ce o
f tor
ture
or i
nhum
an o
r de
grad
ing
trea
tmen
t in
thei
r cou
ntry
of o
rigin
lsquo43
It f
ollo
ws t
hat A
rtic
le 4
and
Art
icle
19(
2) o
f the
Cha
rter
as i
nter
pret
ed in
the
light
of A
rtic
le 3
of t
he
ECHR
pre
clud
e a
Mem
ber S
tate
from
exp
ellin
g a
third
cou
ntry
nat
iona
l whe
re su
ch e
xpul
sion
wou
ld
in e
ssen
ce r
esul
t in
signi
fican
t and
per
man
ent d
eter
iora
tion
of th
at p
erso
nrsquos m
enta
l hea
lth d
isord
ers
pa
rtic
ular
ly w
here
as i
n th
e pr
esen
t cas
e su
ch d
eter
iora
tion
wou
ld e
ndan
ger h
is lif
e
lsquo44
Mor
eove
r th
e Co
urt h
as p
revi
ously
hel
d th
at i
n su
ch e
xcep
tiona
l cas
es t
he re
mov
al o
f a th
ird
coun
try
natio
nal s
uffe
ring
from
a se
rious
illn
ess t
o a
coun
try
in w
hich
app
ropr
iate
trea
tmen
t is n
ot
avai
labl
e m
ay c
onst
itute
an
infr
inge
men
t of t
he p
rinci
ple
of n
on-r
efou
lem
ent a
nd t
here
fore
an
infr
inge
men
t of A
rtic
le 5
of D
irect
ive
2008
115
rea
d in
the
light
of A
rtic
le 1
9 of
the
Char
ter
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 37
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo45
Nev
erth
eles
s it
is a
ppar
ent f
rom
the
requ
est f
or a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g th
at th
e re
leva
nt n
atio
nal c
ourt
s ha
ve h
eld
that
Art
icle
3 o
f the
ECH
R pr
eclu
des M
P be
ing
rem
oved
from
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
to S
ri La
nka
Th
us th
e pr
esen
t cas
e do
es n
ot c
once
rn th
e pr
otec
tion
agai
nst r
emov
al d
eriv
ing
und
er A
rtic
le 3
of t
he
ECHR
fro
m th
e pr
ohib
ition
on
expo
sing
a pe
rson
to in
hum
an o
r deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent
but r
athe
r the
se
para
te is
sue
as to
whe
ther
the
host
Mem
ber S
tate
is re
quire
d to
gra
nt su
bsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
stat
us
unde
r Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3 to
a th
ird c
ount
ry n
atio
nal w
ho h
as b
een
tort
ured
by
the
auth
oriti
es o
f his
coun
try
of o
rigin
and
suffe
rs se
vere
psy
chol
ogic
al a
fter-e
ffect
s whi
ch i
n th
e ev
ent o
f him
bei
ng re
turn
ed
to th
at c
ount
ry c
ould
be
subs
tant
ially
agg
rava
ted
and
lead
to a
serio
us ri
sk o
f him
com
mitt
ing
suic
ide
lsquo46
The
cou
rt h
as a
lso p
revi
ously
hel
d th
at th
e fa
ct th
at A
rtic
le 3
of t
he E
CHR
as o
bser
ved
in
para
grap
hs 3
9 to
41
abov
e p
recl
udes
in
very
exc
eptio
nal c
ases
a th
ird c
ount
ry n
atio
nal s
uffe
ring
from
a se
rious
illn
ess b
eing
rem
oved
to a
cou
ntry
in w
hich
app
ropr
iate
trea
tmen
t is n
ot a
vaila
ble
does
no
t mea
n th
at th
at p
erso
n sh
ould
be
gran
ted
leav
e to
resid
e in
a M
embe
r Sta
te b
y w
ay o
f sub
sidia
ry
prot
ectio
n un
der D
irect
ive
2004
83
lsquo47N
everthelessitshou
ldbeno
tedthatunlike
thecasegivingrisetoth
ejudgmento
f18 De
cembe
r20
14 M
rsquoBod
j (C-
542
13 E
UC
2014
245
2) w
hich
conc
erne
d a
third
coun
try
natio
nal w
ho h
ad b
een
the
vict
im
of a
n as
saul
t in
the
host
Mem
ber S
tate
the
pre
sent
case
conc
erns
a th
ird co
untr
y na
tiona
l who
was
tort
ured
by
the
auth
oriti
es o
f his
coun
try
of o
rigin
and
who
acc
ordi
ng to
dul
y su
bsta
ntia
ted
med
ical e
vide
nce
cont
inue
s as
a re
sult
of th
ose
acts
to
suffe
r fro
m p
ost-t
raum
atic
afte
r-effe
cts t
hat a
re lik
ely
to b
e sig
nific
antly
and
pe
rman
ently
exa
cerb
ated
to
the
poin
t of e
ndan
gerin
g hi
s life
if h
e is
retu
rned
to th
at co
untr
y
lsquo48
In
thos
e ci
rcum
stan
ces
bot
h th
e ca
use
of th
e cu
rren
t sta
te o
f hea
lth o
f a th
ird c
ount
ry n
atio
nal
in a
situ
atio
n su
ch a
s tha
t in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s n
amel
y ac
ts o
f tor
ture
infli
cted
by
the
auth
oriti
es
of h
is co
untr
y of
orig
in in
the
past
and
the
fact
that
if h
e w
ere
to b
e re
turn
ed to
his
coun
try
of o
rigin
hi
s men
tal h
ealth
diso
rder
s wou
ld b
e su
bsta
ntia
lly a
ggra
vate
d on
acc
ount
of t
he p
sych
olog
ical
trau
ma
that
he
cont
inue
s to
suffe
r as a
resu
lt of
that
tort
ure
are
rele
vant
fact
ors t
o be
take
n in
to a
ccou
nt w
hen
inte
rpre
ting
Artic
le 1
5(b)
of D
irect
ive
2004
83
lsquo49
Nev
erth
eles
s su
ch su
bsta
ntia
l agg
rava
tion
cann
ot i
n its
elf
be re
gard
ed a
s inh
uman
or d
egra
ding
tr
eatm
ent i
nflic
ted
on th
at th
ird c
ount
ry n
atio
nal i
n hi
s cou
ntry
of o
rigin
with
in th
e m
eani
ng o
f Ar
ticle
15(
b) o
f tha
t dire
ctiv
e
lsquo50
In
that
rega
rd i
t is a
ppro
pria
te to
exa
min
e a
s req
uest
ed in
the
orde
r for
refe
renc
e th
e ef
fect
that
may
re
sult
from
a la
ck i
n th
e co
untr
y of
orig
in o
f the
per
son
conc
erne
d o
f fac
ilitie
s offe
ring
appr
opria
te ca
re fo
r th
e ph
ysica
l and
men
tal a
fter-e
ffect
s res
ultin
g fro
m th
e to
rtur
e in
flict
ed b
y th
e au
thor
ities
of t
hat c
ount
ry
38 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo51
In th
at re
spec
t it
shou
ld b
e re
calle
d th
at th
e Co
urt h
as h
eld
that
the
serio
us h
arm
refe
rred
to in
Ar
ticle
15(
b) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3 ca
nnot
sim
ply
be th
e re
sult
of g
ener
al sh
ortc
omin
gs in
the
heal
th
syst
em o
f the
cou
ntry
of o
rigin
The
risk
of d
eter
iora
tion
in th
e he
alth
of a
third
cou
ntry
nat
iona
l who
is
suffe
ring
from
a se
rious
illn
ess
as a
resu
lt of
ther
e be
ing
no a
ppro
pria
te tr
eatm
ent i
n hi
s cou
ntry
of o
rigin
is
not s
uffic
ient
unl
ess t
hat t
hird
cou
ntry
nat
iona
l is i
nten
tiona
lly d
epriv
ed o
f hea
lth c
are
to w
arra
nt th
at
pers
on b
eing
gra
nted
subs
idia
ry p
rote
ctio
n
lsquo52
In o
rder
to a
sses
s whe
ther
a th
ird c
ount
ry n
atio
nal w
ho h
as in
the
past
bee
n to
rtur
ed b
y th
e au
thor
ities
of h
is co
untr
y of
orig
in f
aces
if r
etur
ned
to th
at c
ount
ry a
real
risk
of b
eing
inte
ntio
nally
de
priv
ed o
f app
ropr
iate
car
e fo
r the
phy
sical
and
men
tal a
fter-e
ffect
s res
ultin
g fr
om th
e to
rtur
e in
flict
ed
by th
ose
auth
oriti
es i
t is n
eces
sary
in
the
light
of w
hat h
as b
een
stat
ed in
par
agra
ph 5
0 ab
ove
and
reci
tal
25 o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3 w
hich
stat
es th
at th
e cr
iteria
for g
rant
ing
subs
idia
ry p
rote
ctio
n m
ust b
e dr
awn
from
inte
rnat
iona
l hum
an ri
ghts
inst
rum
ents
to
take
Art
icle
14
of th
e Co
nven
tion
agai
nst T
ortu
re in
to
cons
ider
atio
n
lsquo53
Acc
ordi
ng to
that
pro
visio
n S
tate
par
ties t
o th
at c
onve
ntio
n m
ust e
nsur
e th
at u
nder
thei
r leg
al
syst
ems
a v
ictim
of t
ortu
re h
as th
e rig
ht to
obt
ain
redr
ess
incl
udin
g th
e re
sour
ces n
eces
sary
to a
chie
ve a
s fu
ll a
reha
bilit
atio
n as
pos
sible
lsquo54
In th
at re
gard
it m
ust
how
ever
be
note
d th
at th
e re
gim
e in
trod
uced
by
Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3 pu
rsue
s di
ffere
nt a
ims a
nd e
stab
lishe
s pro
tect
ion
mec
hani
sms w
hich
are
cle
arly
dist
inct
from
thos
e of
the
Conv
entio
n ag
ains
t Tor
ture
lsquo55
As i
s app
aren
t fro
m it
s six
th re
cital
and
Art
icle
2 th
e m
ain
obje
ctiv
e of
the
Conv
entio
n ag
ains
t Tor
ture
is
to m
ake
mor
e ef
fect
ive
the
stru
ggle
aga
inst
tort
ure
and
othe
r cru
el i
nhum
an o
r deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent
or p
unish
men
t thr
ough
out t
he w
orld
by
mea
ns o
f pre
vent
ion
How
ever
the
mai
n ob
ject
ive
of D
irect
ive
2004
83
as s
et o
ut in
its s
ixth
recit
al i
s on
the
one
hand
to
ensu
re th
at M
embe
r Sta
tes a
pply
com
mon
cr
iteria
for t
he id
entif
icatio
n of
per
sons
gen
uine
ly in
nee
d of
inte
rnat
iona
l pro
tect
ion
and
on
the
othe
r ha
nd t
o en
sure
that
a m
inim
um le
vel o
f ben
efits
is a
vaila
ble
for t
hose
per
sons
in a
ll M
embe
r Sta
tes
As
rega
rds
mor
e sp
ecifi
cally
the
ben
efici
arie
s of s
ubsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
stat
us t
hat d
irect
ive
aim
s to
offe
r w
ithin
th
e te
rrito
ry o
f the
Mem
ber S
tate
s pr
otec
tion
simila
r to
that
affo
rded
to re
fuge
es b
y th
e Co
nven
tion
rela
ting
toth
eStatusofR
efugeessig
nedinGen
evaon
28 July195
1(U
nite
d N
atio
ns T
reat
y Se
ries
Vol
189
p 1
50
No
2545
(195
4))
to p
erso
ns w
ho ca
nnot
be
rega
rded
as r
efug
ees b
ut a
re a
t risk
int
er a
lia o
f bei
ng su
bjec
ted
to to
rtur
e or
inhu
man
or d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t if r
etur
ned
to th
eir c
ount
ry o
f orig
in
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 39
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo56
Acc
ordi
ngly
it is
not
pos
sible
with
out d
isreg
ardi
ng th
e di
stin
ct a
reas
cov
ered
by
thos
e tw
o re
gim
es
for a
third
cou
ntry
nat
iona
l in
a sit
uatio
n su
ch a
s tha
t of M
P to
be
elig
ible
for s
ubsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
as
a re
sult
of e
very
vio
latio
n b
y hi
s Sta
te o
f orig
in o
f Art
icle
14
of th
e Co
nven
tion
agai
nst T
ortu
re
lsquo57
It is
ther
efor
e fo
r the
nat
iona
l cou
rt to
asc
erta
in i
n th
e lig
ht o
f all
curr
ent a
nd re
leva
nt in
form
atio
n
in p
artic
ular
repo
rts b
y in
tern
atio
nal o
rgan
isatio
ns a
nd n
on-g
over
nmen
tal h
uman
righ
ts o
rgan
isatio
ns
whe
ther
in
the
pres
ent c
ase
MP
is lik
ely
if re
turn
ed to
his
coun
try
of o
rigin
to
face
a ri
sk o
f bei
ng
inte
ntio
nally
dep
rived
of a
ppro
pria
te c
are
for t
he p
hysic
al a
nd m
enta
l afte
r-effe
cts r
esul
ting
from
the
tort
ure
he w
as su
bjec
ted
to b
y th
e au
thor
ities
of t
hat c
ount
ry T
hat w
ill b
e th
e ca
se i
nter
alia
if
in
circ
umst
ance
s whe
re a
s in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s a
third
cou
ntry
nat
iona
l is a
t risk
of c
omm
ittin
g su
icid
e be
caus
e of
the
trau
ma
resu
lting
from
the
tort
ure
he w
as su
bjec
ted
to b
y th
e au
thor
ities
of h
is co
untr
y of
orig
in i
t is c
lear
that
thos
e au
thor
ities
not
with
stan
ding
thei
r obl
igat
ion
unde
r Art
icle
14
of th
e Co
nven
tion
agai
nst T
ortu
re a
re n
ot p
repa
red
to p
rovi
de fo
r his
reha
bilit
atio
n T
here
will
also
be
such
a ri
sk
if it
is ap
pare
nt th
at th
e au
thor
ities
of t
hat c
ount
ry h
ave
adop
ted
a di
scrim
inat
ory
polic
y as
rega
rds a
cces
s to
hea
lth c
are
thus
mak
ing
it m
ore
diffi
cult
for c
erta
in e
thni
c gr
oups
or c
erta
in g
roup
s of i
ndiv
idua
ls o
f w
hich
MP
form
s par
t to
obt
ain
acce
ss to
app
ropr
iate
car
e fo
r the
phy
sical
and
men
tal a
fter-e
ffect
s of t
he
tort
ure
perp
etra
ted
by th
ose
auth
oriti
es
lsquo58
It f
ollo
ws f
rom
the
fore
goin
g th
at A
rtic
les 2
(e) a
nd 1
5(b)
of D
irect
ive
2004
83
read
in th
e lig
ht o
f Ar
ticle
4 o
f the
Cha
rter
mus
t be
inte
rpre
ted
as m
eani
ng th
at a
third
cou
ntry
nat
iona
l who
in th
e pa
st
has b
een
tort
ured
by
the
auth
oriti
es o
f his
coun
try
of o
rigin
and
no
long
er fa
ces a
risk
of b
eing
tort
ured
if
retu
rned
to th
at c
ount
ry b
ut w
hose
phy
sical
and
psy
chol
ogic
al h
ealth
cou
ld i
f so
retu
rned
ser
ious
ly
dete
riora
te l
eadi
ng to
a se
rious
risk
of h
im c
omm
ittin
g su
icid
e on
acc
ount
of t
raum
a re
sulti
ng fr
om
the
tort
ure
he w
as su
bjec
ted
to i
s elig
ible
for s
ubsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
if th
ere
is a
real
risk
of h
im b
eing
in
tent
iona
lly d
epriv
ed i
n hi
s cou
ntry
of o
rigin
of a
ppro
pria
te c
are
for t
he p
hysic
al a
nd m
enta
l afte
r-ef
fect
s of t
hat t
ortu
re t
hat b
eing
a m
atte
r for
the
natio
nal c
ourt
to d
eter
min
ersquo
40 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
[GC]
Serin
Alh
eto
v Za
mes
tnik
-pre
dsed
atel
na
Dar
zhav
na a
gent
sia
za b
ezha
ntsi
te
C-58
516
EUC
201
858
4
250
720
18
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
12(
1) o
f Directive20
1195EU
ofthe
Europ
eanParliam
enta
ndofthe
Cou
ncilof13 De
cembe
r201
1on
stan
dards
for t
he q
ualif
icat
ion
of th
ird-c
ount
ry n
atio
nals
or st
atel
ess p
erso
ns a
s ben
efic
iarie
s of i
nter
natio
nal
prot
ectio
n fo
r a u
nifo
rm st
atus
for r
efug
ees o
r for
per
sons
elig
ible
for s
ubsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
and
for t
he
cont
ent o
f the
pro
tect
ion
gran
ted
Com
mon
pol
icy
on a
sylu
m a
nd su
bsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
mdash S
tand
ards
for t
he q
ualif
icat
ion
of th
ird-c
ount
ry
natio
nals
or st
atel
ess p
erso
ns a
s ben
efic
iarie
s of i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n mdash
Dire
ctiv
e 20
119
5EU
mdash
Artic
le 1
2 mdash
Exc
lusio
n fr
om re
fuge
e st
atus
mdash P
erso
ns re
gist
ered
with
the
Uni
ted
Nat
ions
Rel
ief a
nd W
orks
Ag
ency
for P
ales
tine
Refu
gees
in th
e N
ear E
ast (
UN
RWA)
Para
14
rsquo14
Art
icle
12
of th
at d
irect
ive
whi
ch is
also
con
tain
ed in
Cha
pter
III
is en
title
d lsquoE
xclu
sionrsquo
and
pro
vide
s as
follo
ws
lsquo1
A
third
-cou
ntry
nat
iona
l or a
stat
eles
s per
son
is ex
clud
ed fr
om b
eing
a re
fuge
e if
(a)
h
e or
she
falls
with
in th
e sc
ope
of A
rtic
le 1
(D) o
f the
Gen
eva
Conv
entio
n re
latin
g to
pro
tect
ion
or a
ssist
ance
from
org
ans o
r age
ncie
s of t
he U
nite
d N
atio
ns o
ther
than
the
Uni
ted
Nat
ions
Hig
h Co
mm
issio
ner f
or R
efug
ees
Whe
n su
ch p
rote
ctio
n or
ass
istan
ce h
as c
ease
d fo
r any
reas
on w
ithou
t the
po
sitio
n of
such
per
sons
bei
ng d
efin
itely
sett
led
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith th
e re
leva
nt re
solu
tions
ado
pted
by
the
Gene
ral A
ssem
bly
of th
e U
nite
d N
atio
ns t
hose
per
sons
shal
l ips
o fa
cto
be e
ntitl
ed to
the
bene
fits o
f th
is Di
rect
ive
helliprsquo
Para
103
lsquo103
In
that
rega
rd i
t sho
uld
be n
oted
firs
t of a
ll th
at D
irect
ive
2013
32
dist
ingu
ishes
bet
wee
n th
e lsquod
eter
min
ing
auth
ority
rsquo whi
ch it
def
ines
in A
rtic
le 2
(f) a
s lsquoan
y qu
asi-j
udic
ial o
r adm
inist
rativ
e bo
dy in
a
Mem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
le fo
r exa
min
ing
appl
icat
ions
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n co
mpe
tent
to ta
ke
deci
sions
at f
irst i
nsta
nce
in su
ch c
ases
rsquo and
the
lsquocour
t or t
ribun
alrsquo r
efer
red
to in
Art
icle
46
The
pro
cedu
re
befo
re a
det
erm
inin
g au
thor
ity is
gov
erne
d by
the
prov
ision
s of C
hapt
er II
I of t
hat d
irect
ive
ent
itled
lsquoP
roce
dure
s at f
irst i
nsta
ncersquo
whi
le th
e pr
oced
ure
befo
re a
cou
rt o
r trib
unal
mus
t com
ply
with
the
rule
s la
id d
own
in C
hapt
er V
of t
hat d
irect
ive
ent
itled
lsquoApp
eals
proc
edur
esrsquo w
hich
is m
ade
up o
f Art
icle
46
rsquo
Cord
ero
Alon
so
C-81057 Sep
tembe
r20
06
VTB-
VAB
and
Gala
tea
C-
261
07 a
nd C
-299
07
23 April2
009
Abed
El K
arem
El K
ott
and
Oth
ers
C-36
411
19 Decem
ber2
012
Dom
ingu
ez C
-282
10
24 Janu
ary2012
Asso
ciatio
n de
m
eacutedia
tion
socia
le
C-1761215 Janu
ary
2014
Ambi
sigC-46157 Ju
ly
2016
Diak
iteacute C
-285
12
30 Janu
ary2014
Zh a
nd O
C-
554
13
11 Ju
ne2015
Jafa
riC-6461626 July
2017
Sack
oC-3481626 July
2017
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 41
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
107
lsquo107
In
the
abse
nce
of a
ny re
fere
nce
to th
e la
ws o
f the
Mem
ber S
tate
s a
nd h
avin
g re
gard
to th
e pu
rpos
e of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
2 se
t out
in re
cita
l 4 th
ereo
f th
ose
wor
ds m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
d an
d ap
plie
d in
a
unifo
rm m
anne
r M
oreo
ver
as re
cita
l 13
of th
at d
irect
ive
stat
es t
he a
ppro
xim
atio
n of
rule
s und
er th
at
dire
ctiv
e ai
ms t
o cr
eate
equ
ival
ent c
ondi
tions
for t
he a
pplic
atio
n of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
119
5 in
the
Mem
ber
Stat
es a
nd to
lim
it th
e m
ovem
ents
of a
pplic
ants
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n be
twee
n M
embe
r Sta
tesrsquo
Para
s 1
09-1
14
lsquo109
In
that
rega
rd a
part
from
the
fact
that
it p
ursu
es th
e ov
eral
l pur
pose
of e
stab
lishi
ng c
omm
on
proc
edur
al st
anda
rds
Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
2 se
eks i
n pa
rtic
ular
as i
s app
aren
t int
er a
lia fr
om re
cita
l 18
to
ens
ure
that
app
licat
ions
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n ar
e de
alt w
ith lsquoa
s soo
n as
pos
sible
hellip w
ithou
t pr
ejud
ice
to a
n ad
equa
te a
nd c
ompl
ete
exam
inat
ion
bein
g ca
rrie
d ou
trsquo
lsquo110
In
that
con
text
the
wor
ds lsquos
hall
ensu
re th
at a
n ef
fect
ive
rem
edy
prov
ides
for a
full
and
ex
nunc
exa
min
atio
n of
bot
h fa
cts a
nd p
oint
s of l
awrsquo m
ust
in o
rder
not
to d
epriv
e th
em o
f the
ir or
dina
ry
mea
ning
be
inte
rpre
ted
as m
eani
ng th
at th
e M
embe
r Sta
tes a
re re
quire
d b
y vi
rtue
of A
rtic
le 4
6(3)
of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
2 to
ord
er th
eir n
atio
nal l
aw in
such
a w
ay th
at th
e pr
oces
sing
of th
e ap
peal
s ref
erre
d to
in
clud
es a
n ex
amin
atio
n b
y th
e co
urt o
r trib
unal
of a
ll th
e fa
cts a
nd p
oint
s of l
aw n
eces
sary
in o
rder
to
mak
e an
up-
to-d
ate
asse
ssm
ent o
f the
cas
e at
han
d
lsquo111
In
that
rega
rd t
he e
xpre
ssio
n lsquoe
x nu
ncrsquo p
oint
s to
the
cour
t or t
ribun
alrsquos
oblig
atio
n to
mak
e an
as
sess
men
t tha
t tak
es in
to a
ccou
nt s
houl
d th
e ne
ed a
rise
new
evi
denc
e w
hich
has
com
e to
ligh
t afte
r the
ad
optio
n of
the
deci
sion
unde
r app
eal
lsquo112
Suc
h an
ass
essm
ent m
akes
it p
ossib
le to
dea
l with
the
appl
icat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n ex
haus
tivel
y w
ithou
t the
re b
eing
any
nee
d to
refe
r the
cas
e ba
ck to
the
dete
rmin
ing
auth
ority
Thu
s th
e co
urtrsquos
pow
er to
take
into
con
sider
atio
n ne
w e
vide
nce
on w
hich
that
aut
horit
y ha
s not
take
n a
deci
sion
is co
nsist
ent w
ith th
e pu
rpos
e of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
2 a
s ref
erre
d to
in p
arag
raph
109
of t
his j
udgm
ent
lsquo113
For
its p
art
the
adje
ctiv
e lsquofu
llrsquo u
sed
in A
rtic
le 4
6(3)
of D
irect
ive
2013
32
conf
irms t
hat t
he c
ourt
or
trib
unal
is re
quire
d to
exa
min
e bo
th th
e ev
iden
ce w
hich
the
dete
rmin
ing
auth
ority
took
into
acc
ount
or
coul
d ha
ve ta
ken
into
acc
ount
and
that
whi
ch h
as a
risen
follo
win
g th
e ad
optio
n of
the
deci
sion
by th
at
auth
ority
42 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo114
Fu
rthe
rmor
e si
nce
that
pro
visio
n m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
d in
a m
anne
r con
siste
nt w
ith A
rticl
e 47
of t
he
Char
ter
the
requ
irem
ent f
or a
full
and
ex n
unc e
xam
inat
ion
impl
ies t
hat t
he co
urt o
r trib
unal
seise
d of
the
appe
al m
ust i
nter
view
the
appl
icant
unl
ess i
t con
sider
s tha
t it i
s in
a po
sitio
n to
carr
y ou
t the
exa
min
atio
n so
lely
on
the
basis
of t
he in
form
atio
n in
the
case
file
inc
ludi
ng w
here
app
licab
le t
he re
port
or t
rans
crip
t of
thepe
rson
alinterviewbeforethatautho
rity(seetothateffe
ctjud
gmen
tof2
6 July201
7S
acko
C-3
481
6
EUC
201
759
1 p
arag
raph
s 31
and
44)
In th
e ev
ent t
hat n
ew e
vide
nce
com
es to
ligh
t afte
r the
ado
ptio
n of
th
e de
cisio
n un
der a
ppea
l th
e co
urt o
r trib
unal
is re
quire
d a
s fol
low
s fro
m A
rticl
e 47
of t
he C
hart
er t
o of
fer
the
appl
icant
the
oppo
rtun
ity to
exp
ress
his
view
s whe
n th
at e
vide
nce
coul
d af
fect
him
neg
ativ
elyrsquo
Para
116
lsquo116
Fin
ally
it m
ust b
e st
ress
ed th
at it
follo
ws f
rom
reci
tals
16 a
nd 2
2 of
Art
icle
4 a
nd fr
om th
e ge
nera
l sc
hem
e of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
2 th
at th
e ex
amin
atio
n of
the
appl
icat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n by
an
adm
inist
rativ
e or
qua
si-ju
dici
al b
ody
with
spec
ific
reso
urce
s and
spec
ialis
ed st
aff i
n th
is ar
ea is
a v
ital s
tage
of
the
com
mon
pro
cedu
res e
stab
lishe
d by
that
dire
ctiv
e A
ccor
ding
ly th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
righ
t rec
ogni
sed
by
Artic
le 4
6(3)
of t
hat d
irect
ive
to o
btai
n a
full
and
ex n
unc
exam
inat
ion
befo
re a
cou
rt o
r trib
unal
can
not
dim
inish
the
oblig
atio
n on
the
part
of t
hat a
pplic
ant
whi
ch is
gov
erne
d by
Art
icle
s 12
and
13 o
f tha
t di
rect
ive
to c
oope
rate
with
that
bod
yrsquo
Para
125
lsquo125
Whi
le a
n ap
plic
antrsquos
righ
t to
be h
eard
with
rega
rd to
the
adm
issib
ility
of h
is or
her
app
licat
ion
befo
re
any
deci
sion
on th
e m
atte
r is t
aken
is e
nsur
ed i
n th
e co
ntex
t of t
he p
roce
dure
bef
ore
the
dete
rmin
ing
auth
ority
by
the
pers
onal
inte
rvie
w p
rovi
ded
for i
n Ar
ticle
34
of D
irect
ive
2013
32
that
righ
t der
ives
du
ring
the
appe
al p
roce
dure
refe
rred
to in
Art
icle
46
of th
at d
irect
ive
from
Art
icle
47
of th
e Ch
arte
r and
isexercisedifnecessaryb
ymea
nsofa
hea
ringofth
eap
plican
t(seeto
thateffe
ctjud
gmen
tof2
6 July
2017
Sac
ko C
-348
16
EU
C2
017
591
par
agra
phs 3
7 to
44)
rsquo
Para
130
lsquo130
In
the
light
of t
he fo
rego
ing
the
answ
er to
the
four
th q
uest
ion
is th
at A
rtic
le 4
6(3)
of D
irect
ive
2013
32
read
in c
onju
nctio
n w
ith A
rtic
le 4
7 of
the
Char
ter
mus
t be
inte
rpre
ted
as m
eani
ng th
at th
e re
quire
men
t for
a fu
ll an
d ex
nun
c ex
amin
atio
n of
the
fact
s and
poi
nts o
f law
may
also
con
cern
the
grou
nds o
f ina
dmiss
ibili
ty o
f the
app
licat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n re
ferr
ed to
in A
rtic
le 3
3(2)
of t
hat
dire
ctiv
e w
here
per
mitt
ed u
nder
nat
iona
l law
and
that
in
the
even
t tha
t the
cou
rt o
r trib
unal
hea
ring
the
appe
al p
lans
to e
xam
ine
a gr
ound
of i
nadm
issib
ility
whi
ch h
as n
ot b
een
exam
ined
by
the
dete
rmin
ing
auth
ority
it m
ust c
ondu
ct a
hea
ring
of th
e ap
plic
ant i
n or
der t
o al
low
that
indi
vidu
al to
exp
ress
his
or h
er
poin
t of v
iew
in p
erso
n co
ncer
ning
the
appl
icab
ility
of t
hat g
roun
d to
his
or h
er p
artic
ular
circ
umst
ance
srsquo
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 43
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
147
lsquo147
How
ever
Art
icle
46(
3) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
2 w
ould
be
depr
ived
of a
ny p
ract
ical
effe
ct if
it w
ere
acce
pted
that
afte
r del
iver
y of
a ju
dgm
ent b
y w
hich
the
cour
t or t
ribun
al o
f firs
t ins
tanc
e co
nduc
ted
in
acc
orda
nce
with
that
pro
visio
n a
full
and
ex n
unca
sses
smen
t of t
he in
tern
atio
nal p
rote
ctio
n ne
eds
of th
e ap
plic
ant b
y vi
rtue
of D
irect
ive
2011
95
that
bod
y co
uld
take
a d
ecisi
on th
at ra
n co
unte
r to
that
as
sess
men
t or c
ould
allo
w a
con
sider
able
per
iod
of ti
me
to e
laps
e w
hich
cou
ld in
crea
se th
e ris
k th
at
evid
ence
requ
iring
a n
ew u
p-to
-dat
e as
sess
men
t mig
ht a
rise
rsquo
CJEU
Ahm
edbe
kova
C-65
216
EUC
201
880
1
041
020
18
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ns th
e in
terp
reta
tion
of D
irect
ive
2011
95
EU o
f theEu
rope
anParliamen
tand
ofthe
Cou
ncilof13 De
cembe
r201
1on
stan
dardsforth
equ
alificatio
nofth
ird-
coun
try
natio
nals
or st
atel
ess p
erso
ns a
s ben
efici
arie
s of i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n fo
r a u
nifo
rm st
atus
for
refu
gees
or f
or p
erso
ns e
ligib
le fo
r sub
sidia
ry p
rote
ctio
n a
nd fo
r the
cont
ent o
f the
pro
tect
ion
gran
ted
Stan
dard
s for
the
qual
ifica
tion
of th
ird-c
ount
ry n
atio
nals
or st
atel
ess p
erso
ns a
s ben
efic
iarie
s of
inte
rnat
iona
l pro
tect
ion
mdash D
irect
ive
2011
95
EU mdash
Art
icle
s 3 4
10
and
23 mdash
App
licat
ions
for
inte
rnat
iona
l pro
tect
ion
lodg
ed se
para
tely
by
fam
ily m
embe
rs mdash
Indi
vidu
al a
sses
smen
t mdash T
akin
g in
to
acco
unt t
hrea
ts in
resp
ect o
f a fa
mily
mem
ber i
n ca
rryi
ng o
ut th
e in
divi
dual
ass
essm
ent o
f the
app
licat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n of
ano
ther
fam
ily m
embe
r mdash M
ore
favo
urab
le st
anda
rds c
apab
le o
f bei
ng
reta
ined
or i
ntro
duce
d by
the
Mem
ber S
tate
s for
the
purp
ose
of e
xten
ding
the
refu
gee
or su
bsid
iary
pr
otec
tion
stat
us o
f a b
enef
icia
ry o
f int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
to fa
mily
mem
bers
mdash A
sses
smen
t of t
he
reas
ons f
or p
erse
cutio
n mdash
Invo
lvem
ent o
f an
Azer
baija
ni n
atio
nal i
n br
ingi
ng a
com
plai
nt a
gain
st h
er
coun
try
befo
re th
e Eu
rope
an C
ourt
of H
uman
Rig
hts mdash
Com
mon
pro
cedu
ral s
tand
ards
Para
94
lsquo94
Alth
ough
it th
us fo
llow
s fro
m A
rticl
e 46
(3) o
f Dire
ctive
201
332
that
the
Mem
ber S
tate
s are
requ
ired
to
amen
d th
eir n
atio
nal la
w in
such
a w
ay th
at th
e pr
oces
sing
of th
e ap
peal
s ref
erre
d to
inclu
des a
n ex
amin
atio
n
by th
e co
urt o
r trib
unal
of a
ll the
fact
s and
poi
nts o
f law
nec
essa
ry in
ord
er to
mak
e an
up-
to-d
ate
asse
ssm
ent
ofth
ecaseath
and(ju
dgmento
f25 July2018A
lhet
o C
-585
16
EU
C20
185
84 p
arag
raph
110
) it
does
not
fo
llow
by
cont
rast
tha
t an
appl
icant
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n m
ay w
ithou
t it b
eing
subj
ect t
o a
furt
her
asse
ssm
ent b
y th
e de
term
inin
g au
thor
ity m
odify
the
grou
nd fo
r his
appl
icatio
n an
d th
ereb
y th
e co
nfig
urat
ion
of th
e fa
cts o
f the
case
by
rely
ing
in a
n ap
peal
pro
cedu
re o
n a
grou
nd fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
whi
ch
whi
lst re
latin
g to
eve
nts o
r thr
eats
whi
ch a
llege
dly
took
pla
ce b
efor
e th
e ad
optio
n of
that
aut
horit
yrsquos d
ecisi
on
or e
ven
befo
re th
e ap
plica
tion
was
lodg
ed w
ere
not m
entio
ned
befo
re th
at a
utho
rityrsquo
FC-4731625 Janu
ary
2018
Y an
d Z
[201
2]
C-71
11
and
C-99
11
5 Septem
ber2
012
Alhe
toC-5851625 July
2018
Moh
amed
MrsquoB
odj
v Eacutet
at b
elge
C-5
421
3
18 Decem
ber2
018
B an
d D
C-5
709
and
C-101099 Novem
ber
2010
X an
d O
ther
s C-
199
12 to
C-2
011
2
7 No
vembe
r2013
44 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
s 9
7-99
lsquo97
Tha
t vita
l sta
ge b
efor
e th
e de
term
inin
g au
thor
ity w
ould
be
circ
umve
nted
if th
e ap
plic
ant w
ere
w
ithou
t any
pro
cedu
ral c
onse
quen
ces
allo
wed
to re
ly fo
r the
pur
pose
s of h
avin
g a
cour
t ann
ul o
r rep
lace
th
e de
cisio
n of
refu
sal a
dopt
ed b
y th
at a
utho
rity
on
a gr
ound
of i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n w
hich
whi
lst
rela
ting
to a
llege
dly
ante
date
d ev
ents
or t
hrea
ts w
as n
ot ra
ised
befo
re th
at a
utho
rity
and
coul
d no
t th
eref
ore
be e
xam
ined
by
it
98 A
ccor
ding
ly w
here
one
of t
he g
roun
ds fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
refe
rred
to in
par
agra
ph 9
5 ab
ove
is in
voke
d fo
r the
firs
t tim
e in
an
appe
al p
roce
dure
and
rela
tes t
o al
lege
d ev
ents
or t
hrea
ts a
nted
atin
g th
e ad
optio
n of
that
dec
ision
or e
ven
the
lodg
ing
of th
e ap
plic
atio
n fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
that
gro
und
mus
t be
rega
rded
as a
lsquofur
ther
repr
esen
tatio
nrsquo w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 4
0(1)
of D
irect
ive
2013
32
As
follo
ws f
rom
that
pro
visio
n su
ch a
cha
ract
erisa
tion
mea
ns th
at th
e co
urt b
efor
e w
hich
the
appe
al h
as
been
bro
ught
is re
quire
d to
con
sider
that
gro
und
in th
e co
urse
of i
ts e
xam
inat
ion
of th
e de
cisio
n ag
ains
t w
hich
the
appe
al h
as b
een
brou
ght
prov
ided
non
ethe
less
that
eac
h of
the
lsquocom
pete
nt a
utho
ritie
srsquo w
hich
in
clud
es n
ot o
nly
that
cou
rt b
ut a
lso th
e de
term
inin
g au
thor
ity h
as th
e op
port
unity
to a
sses
s in
that
fr
amew
ork
that
furt
her r
epre
sent
atio
n
99 I
n or
der t
o de
term
ine
whe
ther
that
cou
rt it
self
is ab
le to
ass
ess t
hat f
urth
er re
pres
enta
tion
in th
e co
urse
of t
he a
ctio
n it
is fo
r the
cou
rt to
asc
erta
in i
n ac
cord
ance
with
the
rule
s of p
roce
dure
laid
dow
n by
na
tiona
l law
whe
ther
the
grou
nd fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
relie
d on
for t
he fi
rst t
ime
befo
re it
has
not
be
en in
clud
ed in
a la
ter p
hase
of t
he a
ppea
l pro
cedu
re a
nd h
as b
een
pres
ente
d in
a su
ffici
ently
spec
ific
man
ner f
or it
to b
e du
ly c
onsid
ered
rsquo
Para
s 1
02-1
03
lsquo102
If
whi
ch it
is fo
r the
refe
rrin
g co
urt a
lone
to a
scer
tain
Mrs
Ahm
edbe
kova
add
ed d
urin
g th
e ap
peal
pr
oced
ure
not a
gro
und
of in
tern
atio
nal p
rote
ctio
n bu
t fur
ther
evi
denc
e in
supp
ort o
f a re
ason
whi
ch w
as
relie
d on
bef
ore
and
reje
cted
by
the
dete
rmin
ing
auth
ority
in
such
a c
ase
it is
for t
he c
ourt
bef
ore
whi
ch
the
actio
n ha
s bee
n br
ough
t to
asce
rtai
n w
heth
er th
e ev
iden
ce re
lied
on fo
r the
firs
t tim
e be
fore
it is
sig
nific
ant a
nd d
oes n
ot o
verla
p w
ith th
e ev
iden
ce w
hich
the
dete
rmin
ing
auth
ority
was
abl
e to
take
into
ac
coun
t If
so t
he c
onsid
erat
ions
set o
ut in
par
agra
phs 9
7 to
100
abo
ve a
pply
-mut
atis
mut
andi
s
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 45
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo103
In
the
light
of t
he fo
rego
ing
the
answ
er to
the
eigh
th q
uest
ion
is th
at A
rtic
le 4
6(3)
of D
irect
ive
2013
32
read
in c
onju
nctio
n w
ith th
e re
fere
nce
to th
e ap
peal
pro
cedu
re c
onta
ined
in A
rtic
le 4
0(1)
of
that
dire
ctiv
e m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
d as
mea
ning
that
a c
ourt
bef
ore
whi
ch a
n ac
tion
has b
een
brou
ght
agai
nst a
dec
ision
refu
sing
inte
rnat
iona
l pro
tect
ion
is in
prin
cipl
e re
quire
d to
exa
min
e a
s lsquofu
rthe
r re
pres
enta
tions
rsquo and
hav
ing
aske
d th
e de
term
inin
g au
thor
ity fo
r an
asse
ssm
ent o
f tho
se re
pres
enta
tions
gr
ound
s for
gra
ntin
g in
tern
atio
nal p
rote
ctio
n or
evi
denc
e w
hich
whi
lst re
latin
g to
eve
nts o
r thr
eats
w
hich
alle
gedl
y to
ok p
lace
bef
ore
the
adop
tion
of th
e de
cisio
n of
refu
sal
or e
ven
befo
re th
e ap
plic
atio
n fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
was
lodg
ed h
ave
been
relie
d on
for t
he fi
rst t
ime
durin
g th
ose
proc
eedi
ngs
Th
at c
ourt
is n
ot h
owev
er r
equi
red
to d
o so
if it
find
s tha
t tho
se g
roun
ds o
r evi
denc
e w
ere
relie
d on
in
a la
te st
age
of th
e ap
peal
pro
ceed
ings
or a
re n
ot p
rese
nted
in a
suffi
cien
tly sp
ecifi
c m
anne
r to
be d
uly
cons
ider
ed o
r in
resp
ect o
f evi
denc
e it
find
s tha
t tha
t evi
denc
e is
not s
igni
fican
t or i
nsuf
ficie
ntly
dist
inct
fr
om e
vide
nce
whi
ch th
e de
term
inin
g au
thor
ity w
as a
lread
y ab
le to
take
into
acc
ount
rsquo
CJEU
Ayub
i v
Bezir
ksha
uptm
anns
chaf
t Lin
z-La
nd
C-71
317
EUC
201
892
9
211
120
18
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ns th
e in
terp
reta
tion
of A
rtic
le 2
9 of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
1195EU
ofthe
Europ
eanParliam
enta
ndofthe
Cou
ncilof13 De
cembe
r201
1on
stan
dardsforth
equ
alifi
catio
n of
third
-cou
ntry
nat
iona
ls or
stat
eles
s per
sons
as b
enef
icia
ries o
f int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
for
a un
iform
stat
us fo
r ref
ugee
s or f
or p
erso
ns e
ligib
le fo
r sub
sidia
ry p
rote
ctio
n a
nd fo
r the
con
tent
of t
he
prot
ectio
n gr
ante
d
Dire
ctiv
e 20
119
5EU
mdash R
ules
rela
ting
to th
e co
nten
t of i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n mdash
Ref
ugee
stat
us mdash
So
cial
pro
tect
ion
mdash D
iffer
ent t
reat
men
t mdash R
efug
es w
ith te
mpo
rary
righ
t of r
esid
ence
Para
24
lsquo24
Sec
ond
con
ferr
ing
such
an
optio
n on
the
Mem
ber S
tate
s with
rega
rd to
the
bene
fits g
rant
ed to
re
fuge
es w
ould
be
inco
mpa
tible
with
the
prin
cipl
e th
at p
erso
ns e
ntitl
ed to
subs
idia
ry p
rote
ctio
n sh
ould
be
acc
orde
d th
e sa
me
trea
tmen
t with
resp
ect t
o pu
blic
relie
f and
ass
istan
ce a
s pro
vide
d to
nat
iona
ls of
th
at M
embe
r Sta
te la
id d
own
in A
rtic
le 2
3 of
the
Gene
va C
onve
ntio
n in
the
light
of w
hich
Art
icle
29
of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
119
5 m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
drsquo
Alo
and
Oss
o C
-443
14
andC-444141 M
arch
2016
HTC-3731324 June
20
15
Dom
ingu
ez C
-282
10
24 Janu
ary2012
Suumlruuml
lC-262964 M
ay
1999
Gavi
eiro
Gav
ieiro
an
d Ig
liesia
s Tor
res
C-44
409
and
C-4
560
9
22 Decem
ber2
010
Napo
li C
-595
12
6 March2014
H C
-174
16
7 Septem
ber2
017
46 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
25
lsquo25
It f
ollo
ws t
hat t
he le
vel o
f soc
ial s
ecur
ity b
enef
its p
aid
to re
fuge
es b
y th
e M
embe
r Sta
te w
hich
gr
ante
d th
at st
atus
whe
ther
tem
pora
ry o
r per
man
ent
mus
t be
the
sam
e as
that
offe
red
to n
atio
nals
of
that
Mem
ber S
tate
rsquo
Para
29
lsquo29
It f
ollo
ws f
rom
the
fore
goin
g th
at re
fuge
es w
ho h
ave
a re
siden
ce p
erm
it lim
ited
to th
ree
year
s mus
t be
ent
itled
to th
e sa
me
leve
l of s
ocia
l ass
istan
ce a
s tha
t pro
vide
d to
nat
iona
ls of
the
Mem
ber S
tate
whi
ch
gran
ted
them
refu
gee
stat
usrsquo
CJEU
MA
and
Oth
ers
v In
tern
atio
nal
Prot
ectio
n Ap
peal
Tr
ibun
al a
nd O
ther
s
C-66
117
EUC
201
953
230
120
19
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
s 6 a
nd 1
7
Artic
le 2
0(3)
and
Art
icle
27(
1) o
f Reg
ulat
ion
(EU
) No
604
2013
of t
he E
urop
ean
Parli
amen
t and
of t
he
Coun
cilo
f26 June
201
3establish
ingthecrite
riaand
mecha
nism
sfordeterminingtheMem
berS
tate
resp
onsib
le fo
r exa
min
ing
an a
pplic
atio
n fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
lodg
ed in
one
of t
he M
embe
r Sta
tes
by a
third
-cou
ntry
nat
iona
l or a
stat
eles
s per
son
Asyl
um p
olic
y mdash
Crit
eria
and
mec
hani
sms f
or d
eter
min
ing
the
Mem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
le fo
r exa
min
ing
an a
pplic
atio
n fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
mdash R
egul
atio
n (E
U) N
o 60
420
13 mdash
Disc
retio
nary
cla
uses
mdash
Asse
ssm
ent c
riter
ia
Para
59
lsquo59
In th
e lig
ht o
f the
ext
ent o
f the
disc
retio
n th
us c
onfe
rred
on
the
Mem
ber S
tate
s it
is fo
r the
Mem
ber
Stat
e co
ncer
ned
to d
eter
min
e th
e ci
rcum
stan
ces i
n w
hich
it w
ishes
to u
se th
e op
tion
conf
erre
d by
the
disc
retio
nary
cla
use
set o
ut in
Art
icle
17(
1) o
f the
Dub
lin II
I Reg
ulat
ion
and
to a
gree
itse
lf to
exa
min
e an
ap
plic
atio
n fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
for w
hich
it is
not
resp
onsib
le u
nder
the
crite
ria d
efin
ed b
y th
at
regu
latio
nrsquo
Para
s 7
0-72
lsquo70
By
its th
ird q
uest
ion
the
refe
rrin
g co
urt a
sks
in e
ssen
ce w
heth
er A
rtic
le 6
(1) o
f the
Dub
lin II
I Re
gula
tion
mus
t be
inte
rpre
ted
as m
eani
ng th
at it
requ
ires a
Mem
ber S
tate
whi
ch is
not
resp
onsib
le
unde
r the
crit
eria
set o
ut b
y th
at re
gula
tion
for e
xam
inin
g an
app
licat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n to
ta
ke in
to a
ccou
nt th
e be
st in
tere
sts o
f the
chi
ld a
nd to
itse
lf ex
amin
e th
at a
pplic
atio
n u
nder
Art
icle
17(
1)
of th
at re
gula
tion
Poho
tovosť C
-470
12
27 Fe
bruary2014
Euro
sane
amie
ntos
and
O
ther
s C-
532
15 a
nd
C-538158 Decem
ber
2016
RO C
-327
18
PPU
19 Sep
tembe
r2018
CK a
nd O
ther
s v
Repu
blika
Slo
veni
ja
C-57
816
PPU
16 Fe
bruary2017
Hala
fC-5281130 May
2013
Fath
i C-
561
7
4 Octob
er2018
Abdu
llahi
C-3
941
2
10 Decem
ber2
013
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 47
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo71
Giv
en th
at it
is a
lread
y ap
pare
nt fr
om p
arag
raph
s 58
and
59 o
f the
pre
sent
judg
men
t tha
t the
exe
rcise
of
the
optio
n af
ford
ed to
Mem
ber S
tate
s by
the
disc
retio
nary
cla
use
set o
ut in
Art
icle
17(
1) o
f the
Dub
lin
III R
egul
atio
n is
not s
ubje
ct to
any
par
ticul
ar c
ondi
tion
and
that
in
prin
cipl
e it
is fo
r eac
h M
embe
r Sta
te to
de
term
ine
the
circ
umst
ance
s in
whi
ch it
wish
es to
use
that
opt
ion
and
to a
gree
that
it w
ill it
self
exam
ine
an a
pplic
atio
n fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
for w
hich
it is
not
resp
onsib
le u
nder
the
crite
ria d
efin
ed b
y th
at
regu
latio
n it
mus
t be
held
that
con
sider
atio
ns re
latin
g to
the
best
inte
rest
s of t
he c
hild
can
also
not
obl
ige
a M
embe
r Sta
te to
use
that
opt
ion
and
itsel
f exa
min
e an
app
licat
ion
for w
hich
it is
not
resp
onsib
le
lsquo72
It fo
llow
s tha
t Art
icle
6(1
) of t
he D
ublin
III R
egul
atio
n m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
d as
mea
ning
that
it d
oes
not r
equi
re a
Mem
ber S
tate
whi
ch is
not
resp
onsib
le u
nder
the
crite
ria se
t out
by
that
regu
latio
n fo
r ex
amin
ing
an a
pplic
atio
n fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
to ta
ke in
to a
ccou
nt th
e be
st in
tere
sts o
f the
chi
ld
and
to it
self
exam
ine
that
app
licat
ion
und
er A
rtic
le 1
7(1)
of t
hat r
egul
atio
nrsquo
Para
76
lsquo76
Fur
ther
mor
e th
e ob
ject
ive
of th
e ra
pid
proc
essin
g of
app
licat
ions
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n an
d in
pa
rtic
ular
the
det
erm
inat
ion
of th
e M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
und
erly
ing
the
proc
edur
e es
tabl
ished
by
the
Dubl
in II
I Reg
ulat
ion
and
refe
rred
to in
reci
tal 5
of t
hat r
egul
atio
n d
iscou
rage
s mul
tiple
rem
edie
srsquo
Para
79
lsquo79
Con
sequ
ently
Art
icle
27(
1) o
f the
Dub
lin II
I Reg
ulat
ion
mus
t be
inte
rpre
ted
as m
eani
ng th
at it
do
es n
ot re
quire
a re
med
y to
be
mad
e av
aila
ble
agai
nst t
he d
ecisi
on n
ot to
use
the
optio
n se
t out
in
Artic
le 1
7(1)
of t
hat r
egul
atio
n w
ithou
t pre
judi
ce to
the
fact
that
that
dec
ision
may
be
chal
leng
ed a
t the
tim
e of
an
appe
al a
gain
st a
tran
sfer
dec
ision
rsquo
Para
s 8
8-90
lsquo88
It m
ust b
e no
ted
that
it is
cle
ar fr
om th
e w
ordi
ng o
f Art
icle
20(
3) o
f the
Dub
lin II
I Reg
ulat
ion
that
th
at is
the
case
Con
sequ
ently
it i
s onl
y w
here
it is
est
ablis
hed
that
such
an
exam
inat
ion
carr
ied
out i
n co
njun
ctio
n w
ith th
at o
f the
chi
ldrsquos
pare
nts i
s not
in th
e be
st in
tere
sts o
f tha
t chi
ld th
at it
will
be
nece
ssar
y to
trea
t the
chi
ldrsquos
situa
tion
sepa
rate
ly fr
om th
at o
f its
par
ents
lsquo89
Tha
t fin
ding
is c
onsis
tent
with
reci
tals
14 to
16
and
int
er a
lia A
rtic
le 6
(3)(a
) and
(4)
Artic
le 8
(1)
and
Artic
le 1
1 of
the
Dubl
in II
I Reg
ulat
ion
It fo
llow
s fro
m th
ose
prov
ision
s tha
t res
pect
for f
amily
life
and
m
ore
spec
ifica
lly p
rese
rvin
g th
e un
ity o
f the
fam
ily g
roup
is a
s a g
ener
al ru
le i
n th
e be
st in
tere
sts o
f the
ch
ild
XC-213175 Ju
ly2018
Tele
foacuteni
ca a
nd
Tele
foacuteni
ca d
e Es
pantildea
v
Com
miss
ion
C-29512P10 July2014
NS v
Sec
reta
ry o
f St
ate
for t
he H
ome
Depa
rtm
ent a
nd
ME
and
Oth
ers
v Re
fuge
e Ap
plica
tions
Co
mm
issio
ner a
nd
Min
ister
for J
ustic
e
Equa
lity
and
Law
Re
form
C-4
111
0 an
d C-4931021 De
cembe
r20
11
48 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo90
In th
e lig
ht o
f all
of th
e fo
rego
ing
cons
ider
atio
ns t
he a
nsw
er to
the
fifth
que
stio
n is
that
Art
icle
20(
3)
of th
e Du
blin
III R
egul
atio
n m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
d as
mea
ning
that
in
the
abse
nce
of e
vide
nce
to th
e co
ntra
ry t
hat p
rovi
sion
esta
blish
es a
pre
sum
ptio
n th
at it
is in
the
best
inte
rest
s of t
he c
hild
to tr
eat t
hat
child
rsquos sit
uatio
n as
indi
ssoc
iabl
e fr
om th
at o
f its
par
ents
rsquo
CJEU
E v
Staa
tsse
cret
aris
van
Ve
iligh
eid
en Ju
stiti
e
C-63
517
EUC
201
919
2
130
320
19
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
3(2
)(c) a
nd
Artic
le11(2)ofC
ouncilDirective20
0386EC
of2
2 Septem
ber2
003on
therig
htto
familyre
unificatio
n
Dire
ctiv
e 20
038
6EC
mdash E
xclu
sions
from
the
scop
e of
the
dire
ctiv
e mdash
Art
icle
3(2
)(c) mdash
Exc
lusio
n of
pe
rson
s ben
efiti
ng fr
om su
bsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
mdash E
xten
sion
of th
e rig
ht to
fam
ily re
unifi
catio
n to
thos
e pe
rson
s und
er n
atio
nal l
aw mdash
Juris
dict
ion
of th
e Co
urt mdash
Art
icle
11(
2) mdash
Lac
k of
offi
cial
doc
umen
tary
ev
iden
ce o
f the
fam
ily re
latio
nshi
p mdash
Exp
lana
tions
rega
rded
as i
nsuf
ficie
ntly
pla
usib
le mdash
Obl
igat
ions
on
the
auth
oriti
es o
f the
Mem
ber S
tate
s to
take
add
ition
al st
eps mdash
Lim
its
Para
s 5
7-59
lsquo57
In th
at re
gard
it i
s for
the
com
pete
nt n
atio
nal a
utho
ritie
s to
mak
e a
bala
nced
and
reas
onab
le
asse
ssm
ent o
f all
the
inte
rest
s in
play
tak
ing
part
icul
ar a
ccou
nt o
f the
inte
rest
s of t
he c
hild
ren
conc
erne
d (ju
dgmen
tof6
Decem
ber2
012O
and
Oth
ers
C-3
561
1 an
d C-
357
11 E
UC
201
277
6 p
arag
raph
81)
lsquo58
Reg
ard
mus
t also
be
had
to A
rtic
le 1
7 of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
038
6 w
hich
requ
ires a
pplic
atio
ns fo
r fam
ily
reun
ificatio
ntobeexam
ined
onacase-by-casebasis(ju
dgmen
tsof9
July201
5K
and
A C
-153
14
EU
C201
545
3paragraph
60and
of2
1 Ap
ril201
6K
hach
ab C
-558
14
EU
C2
016
285
par
agra
ph 4
3)
whi
ch m
ust t
ake
due
acco
unt o
f the
nat
ure
and
solid
ity o
f the
per
sonrsquo
s fam
ily re
latio
nshi
ps a
nd th
e du
ratio
n of
his
resid
ence
in th
e M
embe
r Sta
te a
nd o
f the
exi
sten
ce o
f fam
ily c
ultu
ral a
nd so
cial
ties
with
hiscoun
tryoforig
in(jud
gmen
tof2
7 June
200
6P
arlia
men
t v C
ounc
il C
-540
03
EU
C2
006
429
pa
ragr
aph
64)
lsquo59
Con
sequ
ently
it i
s for
the
com
pete
nt n
atio
nal a
utho
ritie
s w
hen
impl
emen
ting
Dire
ctiv
e 20
038
6 an
d ex
amin
ing
appl
icat
ions
for f
amily
reun
ifica
tion
to m
ake
inte
r alia
a c
ase-
by-c
ase
asse
ssm
ent w
hich
ta
kes a
ccou
nt o
f all
the
rele
vant
asp
ects
of t
he p
artic
ular
cas
e an
d w
here
app
ropr
iate
pay
s par
ticul
ar
atte
ntio
n to
the
inte
rest
s of t
he c
hild
ren
conc
erne
d an
d w
ith a
vie
w to
pro
mot
ing
fam
ily li
fe I
n pa
rtic
ular
ci
rcum
stan
ces s
uch
as th
e ag
e of
the
child
ren
conc
erne
d th
eir c
ircum
stan
ces i
n th
e co
untr
y of
orig
in a
nd
the
exte
nt to
whi
ch th
ey a
re d
epen
dent
on
rela
tives
are
liab
le to
influ
ence
the
exte
nt a
nd in
tens
ity o
f theexam
inationrequ
ired(see
tothateffe
ctjud
gmen
tof2
7 June
200
6P
arlia
men
t v C
ounc
il C
-540
03
EU
C2
006
429
par
agra
ph 5
6) I
n an
y ev
ent
as st
ated
in p
arag
raph
61
of t
he G
uide
lines
no
fact
or ta
ken
sepa
rate
ly m
ay a
utom
atic
ally
lead
to a
dec
ision
rsquo
Nola
n C
-583
10
18 Octob
er2012
K an
d B
C-3
801
7
7 No
vembe
r2018
C an
d A
C-2
571
7
7 No
vembe
r2018
O a
nd O
ther
s C-
356
11
and
C-35
711
6 De
cembe
r2012
Parli
amen
t v C
ounc
il
C-5400327 June
2006
Detiček C
-403
09
PPU
23 Decem
ber2
009
K an
d AC-153149 Ju
ly
2015
Khac
hab
C-5
581
4
21 April2
016
K C
-18
16
14 Sep
tembe
r2017
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 49
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
[GC]
Abub
acar
r Jaw
o ge
gen
Bund
esre
publ
ik
Deut
schl
and
C-16
317
EUC
201
921
8
190
320
19
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ns th
e in
terp
reta
tion
of A
rtic
le 3
(2) a
nd
Artic
le 2
9(1)
and
(2) o
f Reg
ulat
ion
(EU
) No
604
2013
of t
he E
urop
ean
Parli
amen
t and
of t
he C
ounc
il of
26
June
201
3establish
ingthecrite
riaand
mecha
nism
sfordeterminingtheMem
berS
tatere
spon
sible
for e
xam
inin
g an
app
licat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n lo
dged
in o
ne o
f the
Mem
ber S
tate
s by
a th
ird-
coun
try
natio
nal o
r a st
atel
ess p
erso
n a
nd A
rtic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
er o
f Fun
dam
enta
l Rig
hts o
f the
Eur
opea
n U
nion
Area
of f
reed
om s
ecur
ity a
nd ju
stic
e mdash
Dub
lin sy
stem
mdash R
egul
atio
n (E
U) N
o 60
420
13 mdash
Tra
nsfe
r of
the
asyl
um se
eker
to th
e M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
for e
xam
inin
g th
e ap
plic
atio
n fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pr
otec
tion
mdash C
once
pt o
f lsquoab
scon
ding
rsquo mdash M
odal
ities
of e
xten
ding
the
time
limit
for t
rans
fer mdash
Art
icle
4
of th
e Ch
arte
r of F
unda
men
tal R
ight
s of t
he E
urop
ean
Uni
on mdash
Sub
stan
tial r
isk o
f inh
uman
or d
egra
ding
tr
eatm
ent o
n co
mpl
etio
n of
the
asyl
um p
roce
dure
mdash L
ivin
g co
nditi
ons o
f ben
efic
iarie
s of i
nter
natio
nal
prot
ectio
n in
that
Mem
ber S
tate
Para
78
lsquo78
Mor
eove
r it
is se
ttle
d ca
se-la
w th
at th
e pr
ovisi
ons o
f the
Dub
lin II
I Reg
ulat
ion
mus
t be
inte
rpre
ted
and
appl
ied
in a
man
ner c
onsis
tent
with
the
fund
amen
tal r
ight
s gua
rant
eed
by th
e Ch
arte
r in
ter a
lia
Artic
le 4
ther
eof
whi
ch p
rohi
bits
with
out a
ny p
ossib
ility
of d
erog
atio
n in
hum
an o
r deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent
in a
ll its
form
s and
is t
here
fore
of f
unda
men
tal i
mpo
rtan
ce a
nd is
gen
eral
and
abs
olut
e in
that
it is
cl
osel
y lin
ked
to re
spec
t for
hum
an d
igni
ty w
hich
is th
e su
bjec
t of A
rtic
le 1
of t
he C
hart
errsquo
Para
s 8
0-83
lsquo80
In
the
seco
nd p
lace
it s
houl
d be
reca
lled
that
EU
law
is b
ased
on
the
fund
amen
tal p
rem
iss th
at
each
Mem
ber S
tate
shar
es w
ith a
ll th
e ot
her M
embe
r Sta
tes
and
reco
gnise
s tha
t the
y sh
are
with
it
a se
t of c
omm
on v
alue
s on
whi
ch th
e Eu
rope
an U
nion
is fo
unde
d a
s sta
ted
in A
rtic
le 2
TEU
Tha
t pr
emiss
impl
ies a
nd ju
stifi
es th
e ex
isten
ce o
f mut
ual t
rust
bet
wee
n th
e M
embe
r Sta
tes t
hat t
hose
val
ues
will
be
reco
gnise
d a
nd th
eref
ore
that
the
EU la
w th
at im
plem
ents
them
will
be
resp
ecte
d (ju
dgm
ent
of25 July201
8M
inist
er fo
r Jus
tice
and
Equa
lity
(Def
icie
ncie
s in
the
syst
em o
f jus
tice)
C-2
161
8 PP
U
EUC
201
858
6 p
arag
raph
35
and
the
case
-law
cite
d) a
nd th
at th
eir n
atio
nal l
egal
syst
ems a
re c
apab
le
of p
rovi
ding
equ
ival
ent a
nd e
ffect
ive
prot
ectio
n of
the
fund
amen
tal r
ight
s rec
ogni
sed
by th
e Ch
arte
r pa
rtic
ular
ly A
rtic
les 1
and
4 th
ereo
f w
hich
ens
hrin
e on
e of
the
fund
amen
tal v
alue
s of t
he U
nion
and
its
Mem
ber S
tate
s
DOCE
RAM
C-3
951
6
8 March2018
Mig
ratio
nsve
rket
v
Edga
r Pet
rosia
n an
d O
ther
s C-
190
8
29 Janu
ary2009
Shiri
C-2
011
6
25 Octob
er2017
NS a
nd O
ther
s C-
411
10 a
nd C
-493
10
21 Decem
ber2
011
CK a
nd O
ther
s C-
578
16 P
PU
16 Fe
bruary2017
Aranyosi an
d Că
ldăraru
C-
404
15 a
nd
C-65915PPU
5 April
2016
Min
ister
for J
ustic
e an
d Eq
ualit
y (D
efici
encie
s in
the
syst
em o
f jus
tice)
C-21618PPU
25 July
2018
ECtH
R M
SS v
Bel
gium
an
d Gr
eece
[GC
] no
306960921 Janu
ary
2011
50 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo81
The
prin
cipl
e of
mut
ual t
rust
bet
wee
n th
e M
embe
r Sta
tes i
s in
EU
law
of f
unda
men
tal i
mpo
rtan
ce
give
n th
at it
allo
ws a
n ar
ea w
ithou
t int
erna
l bor
ders
to b
e cr
eate
d an
d m
aint
aine
d M
ore
spec
ifica
lly
the
prin
cipl
e of
mut
ual t
rust
requ
ires
par
ticul
arly
as r
egar
ds th
e ar
ea o
f fre
edom
sec
urity
and
just
ice
ea
ch o
f tho
se S
tate
s sa
ve in
exc
eptio
nal c
ircum
stan
ces
to c
onsid
er a
ll th
e ot
her M
embe
r Sta
tes t
o be
co
mpl
ying
with
EU
law
and
par
ticul
arly
with
the
fund
amen
tal r
ight
s rec
ogni
sed
by E
U la
w (s
ee t
o th
at
effectjud
gmen
tsof5
April20
16A
ranyosi and
Căldă
raru
C-4
041
5 an
d C-
659
15 P
PU E
UC
201
619
8
paragrap
h78
and
of2
5 July201
8M
inist
er fo
r Jus
tice
and
Equa
lity
lsquo82
Acc
ordi
ngly
in th
e co
ntex
t of t
he C
omm
on E
urop
ean
Asyl
um S
yste
m a
nd in
par
ticul
ar th
e Du
blin
III
Regu
latio
n w
hich
is b
ased
on
the
prin
cipl
e of
mut
ual t
rust
and
whi
ch a
ims
by
stre
amlin
ing
appl
icat
ions
fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
to a
ccel
erat
e th
eir p
roce
ssin
g in
the
inte
rest
bot
h of
app
lican
ts a
nd
part
icip
atin
g St
ates
it m
ust b
e pr
esum
ed th
at th
e tr
eatm
ent o
f app
lican
ts fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
in
all M
embe
r Sta
tes c
ompl
ies w
ith th
e re
quire
men
ts o
f the
Cha
rter
the
Con
vent
ion
rela
ting
to th
e St
atus
ofRefug
eessign
edin
Gen
evaon
28 July195
1(U
nite
d N
atio
ns T
reat
y Se
ries
Vol
189
p 1
50 N
o 25
45
(195
4))
and
the
ECHR
lsquo83
It i
s not
how
ever
inco
ncei
vabl
e th
at th
at sy
stem
may
in
prac
tice
exp
erie
nce
maj
or o
pera
tiona
l pr
oble
ms i
n a
give
n M
embe
r Sta
te m
eani
ng th
at th
ere
is a
subs
tant
ial r
isk th
at a
pplic
ants
for
inte
rnat
iona
l pro
tect
ion
may
whe
n tr
ansf
erre
d to
that
Mem
ber S
tate
be
trea
ted
in a
man
ner
inco
mpa
tible
with
thei
r fun
dam
enta
l rig
htsrsquo
Para
s 8
6 -8
8
lsquo86
The
seco
nd a
nd th
ird su
bpar
agra
phs o
f Art
icle
3(2
) of t
he D
ublin
III R
egul
atio
n w
hich
cod
ified
that
ca
se-la
w st
ate
that
in
such
a si
tuat
ion
the
dete
rmin
ing
Mem
ber S
tate
bec
omes
the
Mem
ber S
tate
re
spon
sible
for e
xam
inin
g th
e ap
plic
atio
n fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
if it
finds
fol
low
ing
exam
inat
ion
of
the
crite
ria se
t out
in C
hapt
er II
I of t
hat r
egul
atio
n th
at th
e tr
ansf
er c
anno
t be
mad
e to
any
Mem
ber S
tate
de
signa
ted
on th
e ba
sis o
f tho
se c
riter
ia o
r to
the
first
Mem
ber S
tate
in w
hich
the
appl
icat
ion
was
lodg
ed
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 51
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo87
Alth
ough
the
seco
nd su
bpar
agra
ph o
f Art
icle
3(2
) of t
he D
ublin
III R
egul
atio
n en
visa
ges o
nly
the
situa
tionun
derly
ingthejudg
men
tof2
1 De
cembe
r201
1N
S a
nd O
ther
s (C-
411
10 a
nd C
-493
10
EU
C2
011
865)
nam
ely
that
in w
hich
the
real
risk
of i
nhum
an o
r deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent
with
in th
e m
eani
ng o
f Art
icle
4 o
f the
Cha
rter
ste
ms f
rom
syst
emic
flaw
s in
the
asyl
um p
roce
dure
and
the
rece
ptio
n co
nditi
ons o
f app
lican
ts fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
in th
e M
embe
r Sta
te w
hich
pur
suan
t to
that
regu
latio
n is
des
igna
ted
as re
spon
sible
for e
xam
inin
g th
e ap
plic
atio
n it
is n
ever
thel
ess a
ppar
ent
from
par
agra
phs 8
3 an
d 84
of t
he p
rese
nt ju
dgm
ent a
nd fr
om th
e ge
nera
l and
abs
olut
e na
ture
of t
he
proh
ibiti
on la
id d
own
in A
rtic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
er th
at th
e tr
ansf
er o
f an
appl
ican
t to
that
Mem
ber S
tate
is
rule
d ou
t in
any
situa
tion
in w
hich
ther
e ar
e su
bsta
ntia
l gro
unds
for b
elie
ving
that
the
appl
ican
t run
s suc
h a
risk
durin
g hi
s tra
nsfe
r or t
here
afte
r
lsquo88
Acc
ordi
ngly
it is
imm
ater
ial
for t
he p
urpo
ses o
f app
lyin
g Ar
ticle
4 o
f the
Cha
rter
whe
ther
it is
at
the
very
mom
ent o
f the
tran
sfer
dur
ing
the
asyl
um p
roce
dure
or f
ollo
win
g it
that
the
pers
on c
once
rned
w
ould
be
expo
sed
bec
ause
of h
is tr
ansf
er to
the
Mem
ber S
tate
that
is re
spon
sible
with
in th
e m
eani
ng o
f th
e Du
blin
III R
egul
atio
n to
a su
bsta
ntia
l risk
of s
uffe
ring
inhu
man
or d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
trsquo
Para
s 9
0-92
lsquo90
In th
at re
gard
whe
re th
e co
urt o
r trib
unal
hea
ring
an a
ctio
n ch
alle
ngin
g a
tran
sfer
dec
ision
has
av
aila
ble
to it
evi
denc
e pr
ovid
ed b
y th
e pe
rson
con
cern
ed fo
r the
pur
pose
s of e
stab
lishi
ng th
e ex
isten
ce
of su
ch a
risk
tha
t cou
rt o
r trib
unal
is o
blig
ed to
ass
ess
on
the
basis
of i
nfor
mat
ion
that
is o
bjec
tive
re
liabl
e sp
ecifi
c an
d pr
oper
ly u
pdat
ed a
nd h
avin
g re
gard
to th
e st
anda
rd o
f pro
tect
ion
of fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts g
uara
ntee
d by
EU
law
whe
ther
ther
e ar
e de
ficie
ncie
s w
hich
may
be
syst
emic
or g
ener
alise
d o
r w
hich
may
affe
ct c
erta
in g
roup
s of p
eopl
e
lsquo91
As r
egar
ds i
n th
e th
ird p
lace
the
que
stio
n of
wha
t crit
eria
shou
ld g
uide
the
com
pete
nt n
atio
nal
auth
oriti
es in
car
ryin
g ou
t tha
t ass
essm
ent
it m
ust b
e no
ted
that
in
orde
r to
fall
with
in th
e sc
ope
of
Artic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
er w
hich
cor
resp
onds
to A
rtic
le 3
ECH
R a
nd o
f whi
ch th
e m
eani
ng a
nd sc
ope
are
ther
efor
e in
acc
orda
nce
with
Art
icle
52(
3) o
f the
Cha
rter
the
sam
e as
thos
e la
id d
own
by th
e EC
HR t
he
defic
ienc
ies r
efer
red
to in
the
prec
edin
g pa
ragr
aph
of th
e pr
esen
t jud
gmen
t mus
t att
ain
a pa
rtic
ular
ly h
igh
leve
l of s
ever
ity w
hich
dep
ends
on
all t
he c
ircum
stan
ces o
f the
cas
e
lsquo92
Tha
t par
ticul
arly
hig
h le
vel o
f sev
erity
is a
ttain
ed w
here
the
indi
ffere
nce
of th
e au
thor
ities
of a
Mem
ber
Stat
e w
ould
resu
lt in
a p
erso
n w
holly
dep
ende
nt o
n St
ate
supp
ort f
indi
ng h
imse
lf ir
resp
ectiv
e of
his
wish
es
and
pers
onal
choi
ces
in a
situ
atio
n of
ext
rem
e m
ater
ial p
over
ty th
at d
oes n
ot a
llow
him
to m
eet h
is m
ost
basic
nee
ds s
uch
as i
nter
alia
foo
d p
erso
nal h
ygie
ne a
nd a
pla
ce to
live
and
that
und
erm
ines
his
phys
ical
or m
enta
l hea
lth o
r put
s him
in a
stat
e of
deg
rada
tion
inco
mpa
tible
with
hum
an d
igni
tyrsquo
52 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
95
lsquo95
Non
ethe
less
it c
anno
t be
entir
ely
rule
d ou
t tha
t an
appl
ican
t for
inte
rnat
iona
l pro
tect
ion
may
be
able
to
dem
onst
rate
the
exist
ence
of e
xcep
tiona
l circ
umst
ance
s tha
t are
uni
que
to h
im a
nd m
ean
that
in
the
even
t of t
rans
fer t
o th
e M
embe
r Sta
te n
orm
ally
resp
onsib
le fo
r pro
cess
ing
his a
pplic
atio
n fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pr
otec
tion
he
wou
ld fi
nd h
imse
lf b
ecau
se o
f his
part
icul
ar v
ulne
rabi
lity
irre
spec
tive
of h
is w
ishes
and
pe
rson
al c
hoic
es i
n a
situa
tion
of e
xtre
me
mat
eria
l pov
erty
mee
ting
the
crite
ria se
t out
in p
arag
raph
s 91
to 9
3 of
the
pres
ent j
udgm
ent a
fter h
avin
g be
en g
rant
ed in
tern
atio
nal p
rote
ctio
nrsquo
Para
98
lsquo98
In th
e lig
ht o
f all
the
fore
goin
g co
nsid
erat
ions
the
ans
wer
to th
e th
ird q
uest
ion
is as
follo
ws
ndash
E
U la
w m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
d as
mea
ning
that
the
ques
tion
whe
ther
Art
icle
4 o
f the
Cha
rter
pre
clud
es
the
tran
sfer
pur
suan
t to
Artic
le 2
9 of
the
Dubl
in II
I Reg
ulat
ion
of a
n ap
plic
ant f
or in
tern
atio
nal p
rote
ctio
n to
the
Mem
ber S
tate
whi
ch i
n ac
cord
ance
with
that
regu
latio
n is
nor
mal
ly re
spon
sible
for e
xam
inin
g hi
s app
licat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n w
here
in
the
even
t of s
uch
prot
ectio
n be
ing
gran
ted
in th
at
Mem
ber S
tate
the
app
lican
t wou
ld b
e ex
pose
d to
a su
bsta
ntia
l risk
of s
uffe
ring
inhu
man
or d
egra
ding
tr
eatm
ent w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
er o
n ac
coun
t of t
he li
ving
con
ditio
ns th
at h
e co
uld
be e
xpec
ted
to e
ncou
nter
as a
ben
efic
iary
of i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n in
that
Mem
ber S
tate
fal
ls w
ithin
its
scop
e
ndash
A
rtic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
er m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
d as
not
pre
clud
ing
such
a tr
ansf
er o
f an
appl
ican
t for
in
tern
atio
nal p
rote
ctio
n u
nles
s the
cou
rt h
earin
g an
act
ion
chal
leng
ing
the
tran
sfer
dec
ision
find
s o
n th
e ba
sis o
f inf
orm
atio
n th
at is
obj
ectiv
e re
liabl
e sp
ecifi
c an
d pr
oper
ly u
pdat
ed a
nd h
avin
g re
gard
to th
e st
anda
rd o
f pro
tect
ion
of fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts g
uara
ntee
d by
EU
law
that
that
risk
is re
al fo
r tha
t app
lican
t on
acc
ount
of t
he fa
ct th
at s
houl
d he
be
tran
sfer
red
he
wou
ld fi
nd h
imse
lf ir
resp
ectiv
e of
his
wish
es a
nd
pers
onal
cho
ices
in
a sit
uatio
n of
ext
rem
e m
ater
ial p
over
tyrsquo
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 53
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
[GC]
Bash
ar Ib
rahi
m a
nd
Oth
ers v
Bun
desr
epub
lik
Deut
schl
and
and
Bund
esre
publ
ik
Deut
schl
and
v Ta
us
Mag
amad
ov
C-29
717
C-3
181
7
C-31
917
and
C-4
381
7
EUC
201
921
9
190
320
19
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
33(
2)(a
) and
of
the
first
par
agra
ph o
f Art
icle
52
of D
irect
ive
2013
32
EU o
f the
Eur
opea
n Pa
rliam
ent a
nd o
f the
Cou
ncil
of26 June
201
3on
com
mon
procedu
resforgrantingan
dwith
draw
inginternationa
lprotectionan
dof
Artic
les 4
and
18
of th
e Ch
arte
r of F
unda
men
tal R
ight
s of t
he E
urop
ean
Uni
on
Area
of f
reed
om s
ecur
ity a
nd ju
stice
mdash C
omm
on p
roce
dure
s for
gra
ntin
g an
d w
ithdr
awin
g in
tern
atio
nal
prot
ectio
n mdash
Dire
ctive
201
332
EU
mdash A
rticl
e 33
(2)(a
) mdash R
ejec
tion
by th
e au
thor
ities
of a
Mem
ber S
tate
of a
n ap
plica
tion
for a
sylu
m a
s bei
ng in
adm
issib
le b
ecau
se o
f the
prio
r gra
ntin
g of
subs
idia
ry p
rote
ctio
n in
ano
ther
M
embe
r Sta
te mdash
Art
icle
52 mdash
Sco
pe ra
tione
tem
poris
of t
hat d
irect
ive mdash
Art
icles
4 a
nd 1
8 of
the
Char
ter o
f Fu
ndam
enta
l Rig
hts o
f the
Eur
opea
n Un
ion
mdash S
yste
mic
flaw
s in
the
asyl
um p
roce
dure
in th
at o
ther
Mem
ber
Stat
e mdash
Sys
tem
atic
reje
ctio
n of
app
licat
ions
for a
sylu
m mdash
Sub
stan
tial r
isk o
f suf
ferin
g in
hum
an o
r deg
radi
ng
treat
men
t mdash Li
ving
cond
ition
s of t
hose
gra
nted
subs
idia
ry p
rote
ctio
n in
that
oth
er S
tate
Para
s 8
8-93
lsquo88
Acc
ordi
ngly
whe
re a
cou
rt o
r trib
unal
hea
ring
an a
ctio
n br
ough
t aga
inst
a d
ecisi
on re
ject
ing
a ne
w
appl
icat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n as
bei
ng in
adm
issib
le h
as a
vaila
ble
to it
evi
denc
e pr
oduc
ed b
y th
e ap
plic
ant i
n or
der t
o es
tabl
ish th
e ex
isten
ce o
f suc
h a
risk
in th
e M
embe
r Sta
te th
at h
as p
revi
ously
gr
ante
d su
bsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
that
cou
rt o
r trib
unal
is o
blig
ed to
ass
ess
on
the
basis
of i
nfor
mat
ion
that
is o
bjec
tive
relia
ble
spec
ific
and
prop
erly
upd
ated
and
hav
ing
rega
rd to
the
stan
dard
of p
rote
ctio
n of
fund
amen
tal r
ight
s gua
rant
eed
by E
U la
w w
heth
er th
ere
are
defic
ienc
ies
whi
ch m
ay b
e sy
stem
ic o
r ge
nera
lised
or w
hich
may
affe
ct c
erta
in g
roup
s of p
eopl
e (s
ee b
y an
alog
y ju
dgm
ent o
f tod
ayrsquos
date
Ja
wo
C-1
631
7 p
arag
raph
90
and
the
case
-law
cite
d)
lsquo89
In th
at re
gard
it m
ust b
e st
ated
that
if t
he d
efic
ienc
ies m
entio
ned
in th
e pr
eced
ing
para
grap
h of
the
pres
ent j
udgm
ent a
re to
fall
with
in th
e sc
ope
of A
rtic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
er w
hich
cor
resp
onds
to A
rtic
le 3
of
the
ECHR
and
the
mea
ning
and
scop
e of
whi
ch is
ther
efor
e u
nder
Art
icle
52(
3) o
f the
Cha
rter
the
sam
e as
thos
e la
id d
own
by th
e EC
HR t
hose
def
icie
ncie
s mus
t att
ain
a pa
rtic
ular
ly h
igh
leve
l of s
ever
ity w
hich
de
pend
s on
all t
he c
ircum
stan
ces o
f the
cas
e (ju
dgm
ent o
f tod
ayrsquos
date
Jaw
o C
-163
17
par
agra
ph 9
1 an
d th
e ca
se-la
w c
ited)
lsquo90
Tha
t par
ticul
arly
hig
h le
vel o
f sev
erity
is a
ttai
ned
whe
re th
e in
diffe
renc
e of
the
auth
oriti
es o
f a
Mem
ber S
tate
wou
ld re
sult
in a
per
son
who
lly d
epen
dent
on
Stat
e su
ppor
t fin
ding
him
self
irre
spec
tive
of h
is w
ishes
and
his
pers
onal
cho
ices
in
a sit
uatio
n of
ext
rem
e m
ater
ial p
over
ty th
at d
oes n
ot a
llow
hi
m to
mee
t his
mos
t bas
ic n
eeds
suc
h as
int
er a
lia f
ood
per
sona
l hyg
iene
and
a p
lace
to li
ve a
nd th
at
unde
rmin
es h
is ph
ysic
al o
r men
tal h
ealth
or p
uts h
im in
a st
ate
of d
egra
datio
n in
com
patib
le w
ith h
uman
di
gnity
(jud
gmen
t of t
oday
rsquos da
te J
awo
C-1
631
7 p
arag
raph
92
and
the
case
-law
cite
d)
Alhe
toC-5851625 July
2018
Ahm
edC-36175 April
2017
Abub
acar
r Jaw
o v
Bund
esre
publ
ik
Deut
schl
and
[GC]
C-1631719 March
2019
54 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo91
Tha
t thr
esho
ld c
anno
t the
refo
re c
over
situ
atio
ns c
hara
cter
ised
even
by
a hi
gh d
egre
e of
inse
curit
y or
a si
gnifi
cant
deg
rada
tion
of th
e liv
ing
cond
ition
s of t
he p
erso
n co
ncer
ned
whe
re th
ey d
o no
t ent
ail
extr
eme
mat
eria
l pov
erty
pla
cing
that
per
son
in a
situ
atio
n of
such
gra
vity
that
it m
ay b
e eq
uate
d w
ith
inhu
man
or d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t (ju
dgm
ent o
f tod
ayrsquos
date
Jaw
o C
-163
17
par
agra
ph 9
3)
lsquo92
Giv
en th
e co
ncer
ns o
f the
refe
rrin
g co
urt o
n th
is po
int
it m
ust b
e m
ade
clea
r tha
t ha
ving
rega
rd to
th
e im
port
ance
of t
he p
rinci
ple
of m
utua
l tru
st fo
r the
com
mon
Eur
opea
n as
ylum
syst
em i
nfrin
gem
ents
of
the
prov
ision
s of C
hapt
er V
II of
the
Qua
lific
atio
n Di
rect
ive
whi
ch d
o no
t res
ult i
n a
brea
ch o
f Art
icle
4
of th
e Ch
arte
r do
not p
reve
nt th
e M
embe
r Sta
tes f
rom
exe
rcisi
ng th
e op
tion
gran
ted
by A
rtic
le 3
3(2)
(a) o
f th
e Pr
oced
ures
Dire
ctiv
e
lsquo93
As r
egar
ds th
e fa
ct a
lso m
entio
ned
by th
e re
ferr
ing
cour
t th
at th
ose
gran
ted
subs
idia
ry p
rote
ctio
n do
not
rece
ive
in th
e M
embe
r Sta
te w
hich
gra
nted
such
pro
tect
ion
to th
e ap
plic
ant
any
subs
isten
ce
allo
wan
ce o
r tha
t suc
h al
low
ance
as t
hey
rece
ive
is m
arke
dly
infe
rior t
o th
at in
oth
er M
embe
r Sta
tes
th
ough
they
are
not
trea
ted
diffe
rent
ly fr
om n
atio
nals
of th
at M
embe
r Sta
te t
hat c
an le
ad to
the
findi
ng
that
that
app
lican
t is e
xpos
ed in
that
Mem
ber S
tate
to a
real
risk
of s
uffe
ring
trea
tmen
t tha
t is i
n br
each
of
Art
icle
4 o
f the
Cha
rter
onl
y if
the
cons
eque
nce
is th
at th
e ap
plic
ant i
s b
ecau
se o
f his
or h
er p
artic
ular
vu
lner
abili
ty i
rres
pect
ive
of h
is or
her
wish
es a
nd p
erso
nal c
hoic
es i
n a
situa
tion
of e
xtre
me
mat
eria
l po
vert
y th
at m
eets
the
crite
ria d
escr
ibed
in p
arag
raph
s 89
to 9
1 of
the
pres
ent j
udgm
entrsquo
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 55
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
[GC]
SM v
Ent
ry C
lear
ance
O
ffic
er U
K Vi
sa S
ectio
n
C-12
918
EUC
201
924
8
260
320
19
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
2(2
)(c) a
nd
Artic
les2
7an
d35
ofD
irective20
0438EC
ofthe
Europ
eanParliam
enta
ndofthe
Cou
ncilof29 Ap
ril
2004
on
the
right
of c
itize
ns o
f the
Uni
on a
nd th
eir f
amily
mem
bers
to m
ove
and
resid
e fr
eely
with
in th
e te
rrito
ry o
f the
Mem
ber S
tate
s
Dire
ctiv
e 20
043
8EC
mdash F
amily
mem
bers
of a
citi
zen
of th
e U
nion
mdash A
rtic
le 2
(2)(c
) mdash lsquoD
irect
de
scen
dant
rsquo mdash C
hild
in p
erm
anen
t leg
al g
uard
ians
hip
unde
r the
Alg
eria
n ka
fala
(pro
visio
n of
car
e)
syst
em mdash
Art
icle
3(2
)(a) mdash
Oth
er fa
mily
mem
bers
mdash A
rtic
le 7
and
Art
icle
24(
2) o
f the
Cha
rter
of
Fund
amen
tal R
ight
s of t
he E
urop
ean
Uni
on mdash
Fam
ily li
fe mdash
Bes
t int
eres
ts o
f the
chi
ld
Para
67
lsquo67
Art
icle
7 o
f the
Cha
rter
mus
t m
oreo
ver
be re
ad in
con
junc
tion
with
the
oblig
atio
n to
take
into
co
nsid
erat
ion
the
best
inte
rest
s of t
he c
hild
whi
ch a
re re
cogn
ised
in A
rtic
le 2
4(2)
ther
eofrsquo
Ziol
kow
ski a
nd S
zeja
C-
424
10 a
nd C
-425
10
21 Decem
ber2
011
Lass
al C
-162
09
7 Octob
er2010
O a
nd B
C-4
561
2
12 M
arch2014
Com
an a
nd O
ther
s C-673165 Ju
ne2018
Reye
s C-
423
12
16 Janu
ary2014
Ogi
eria
khi
C-24
413
10 Ju
ly2014
Rahm
an a
nd O
ther
s C-83115 Sep
tembe
r20
12
Bang
erC-891712 July
2018
McB
C-
400
10 P
PU
5 Octob
er2010
ECtH
R C
hbih
i Lou
doud
i an
d O
ther
s v B
elgi
um
no 5226510
16 Decem
ber2
014
Detiček C
-403
09
PPU
23 Decem
ber2
009
56 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
[GC
Staa
tsse
cret
aris
van
Ve
iligh
eid
en Ju
stiti
e v
H an
d R
Join
ed c
ases
C-5
821
7 an
d C-
5837
17
EUC
201
928
0
020
420
19
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Reg
ulat
ion
(EU
) No
60420
13ofthe
Europ
eanParliam
enta
ndofthe
Cou
ncilof26 June
201
3establish
ingthecrite
riaand
m
echa
nism
s for
det
erm
inin
g th
e M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
for e
xam
inin
g an
app
licat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal
prot
ectio
n lo
dged
in o
ne o
f the
Mem
ber S
tate
s by
a th
ird-c
ount
ry n
atio
nal o
r a st
atel
ess p
erso
n
Regu
latio
n (E
U) N
o 60
420
13 mdash
Art
icle
18(
1)(b
) to
(d) mdash
Art
icle
23(
1) mdash
Art
icle
24(
1) mdash
Tak
e ba
ck
proc
edur
e mdash
Crit
eria
for d
eter
min
ing
resp
onsib
ility
mdash N
ew a
pplic
atio
n lo
dged
in a
noth
er M
embe
r St
ate
mdash A
rtic
le 2
0(5)
mdash O
ngoi
ng d
eter
min
atio
n pr
oces
s mdash W
ithdr
awal
of t
he a
pplic
atio
n mdash
Art
icle
27
mdash
Rem
edie
s
Para
83
lsquo83
With
this
in m
ind
it sh
ould
be
obse
rved
that
the
crite
ria fo
r det
erm
inin
g re
spon
sibili
ty se
t out
in
Art
icle
s 8 to
10
of th
e Re
gula
tion
read
in th
e lig
ht o
f rec
itals
13 a
nd 1
4 th
ereo
f ar
e in
tend
ed to
pr
omot
e th
e be
st in
tere
sts o
f the
chi
ld a
nd th
e fa
mily
life
of t
he p
erso
ns c
once
rned
whi
ch a
re m
oreo
ver
guar
ante
ed in
Art
icle
s 7 a
nd 2
4 of
the
Char
ter o
f Fun
dam
enta
l Rig
hts
In th
ose
circ
umst
ance
s a
Mem
ber
Stat
e ca
nnot
in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith th
e pr
inci
ple
of si
ncer
e co
oper
atio
n p
rope
rly m
ake
a ta
ke b
ack
requ
est
in a
situ
atio
n co
vere
d by
Art
icle
20(
5) o
f the
regu
latio
n w
hen
the
pers
on c
once
rned
has
pro
vide
d th
e co
mpe
tent
aut
horit
y w
ith in
form
atio
n cl
early
est
ablis
hing
that
that
Mem
ber S
tate
mus
t be
rega
rded
as
the
Mem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
le fo
r exa
min
ing
the
appl
icat
ion
purs
uant
to th
ose
crite
ria fo
r det
erm
inin
g re
spon
sibili
ty I
n su
ch a
situ
atio
n it
is o
n th
e co
ntra
ry f
or th
at M
embe
r Sta
te to
acc
ept i
ts o
wn
resp
onsib
ility
rsquo
Chav
ez-V
ilche
z and
O
ther
s C-
133
15
10 M
ay2017
Rend
oacuten M
ariacuten
C-1651413 Septem
ber
2016
Ghez
elba
sh C
-63
15
7 June
2016
Karim
C-155157 Ju
ne
2016
Men
gest
eab
C-6
701
6
26 Ju
ly2017
Shiri
C-2
011
6
25 Octob
er2017
ASC-4901626 July
2017
Hasa
n C
-360
16
25 Janu
ary2018
X an
d X
C-4
717
and
C-481713 No
vembe
r20
18
Ghez
elba
sh C
-63
15
7 June
2016
Mirz
a C
-695
15
PPU
17 M
arch2016
Khir
Amay
ry C
-60
16
13 Sep
tembe
r2017
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 57
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
Moh
amm
ed B
ilali
v Bu
ndes
amt f
uumlr
Frem
denw
esen
und
Asy
l
C-72
017
EUC
201
944
8
230
520
19
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
19
of D
irect
ive
2011
95EU
ofthe
Europ
eanParliam
enta
ndofthe
Cou
ncilof13 De
cembe
r201
1on
stan
dardsforth
equ
alifi
catio
n of
third
-cou
ntry
nat
iona
ls or
stat
eles
s per
sons
as b
enef
icia
ries o
f int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
for
a un
iform
stat
us fo
r ref
ugee
s or f
or p
erso
ns e
ligib
le fo
r sub
sidia
ry p
rote
ctio
n a
nd fo
r the
con
tent
of t
he
prot
ectio
n gr
ante
d
Area
of f
reed
om s
ecur
ity a
nd ju
stic
e mdash
Asy
lum
pol
icy
mdash S
ubsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
mdash D
irect
ive
2011
95
EU mdash
Art
icle
19
mdash R
evoc
atio
n of
subs
idia
ry p
rote
ctio
n st
atus
mdash E
rror
on
the
part
of t
he a
dmin
istra
tive
auth
oriti
es w
ith re
spec
t to
the
fact
s
Para
44
lsquo44
In th
at re
gard
it s
houl
d be
not
ed f
irst
that
the
Cour
t has
alre
ady
held
that
it w
ould
be
cont
rary
to
the
gene
ral s
chem
e an
d ob
ject
ives
of D
irect
ive
2011
95
to g
rant
refu
gee
stat
us a
nd su
bsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
stat
us to
third
-cou
ntry
nat
iona
ls in
situ
atio
ns w
hich
hav
e no
con
nect
ion
with
the
ratio
nale
of i
nter
natio
nal
protectio
n(see
tothateffe
ctjud
gmen
tof1
8 De
cembe
r201
4M
rsquoBod
j C-
542
13 E
UC
201
424
52
para
grap
h 44
) Th
e sit
uatio
n of
an
indi
vidu
al w
ho h
as o
btai
ned
subs
idia
ry p
rote
ctio
n st
atus
on
the
basis
of
inco
rrec
t inf
orm
atio
n w
ithou
t eve
r hav
ing
met
the
cond
ition
s for
obt
aini
ng th
at st
atus
has
no
conn
ectio
n w
ith th
e ra
tiona
le o
f int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
rsquo
Para
51
lsquo51
Con
sequ
ently
it f
ollo
ws f
rom
a c
ombi
ned
read
ing
of A
rtic
les 1
6 an
d 19
(1) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
119
5 in
the
light
of t
he g
ener
al sc
hem
e an
d pu
rpos
e of
that
dire
ctiv
e th
at w
here
the
host
Mem
ber S
tate
has
new
in
form
atio
n w
hich
est
ablis
hes t
hat
cont
rary
to it
s ini
tial a
sses
smen
t of t
he si
tuat
ion
of a
third
-cou
ntry
na
tiona
l or o
f a st
atel
ess p
erso
n to
who
m it
gra
nted
subs
idia
ry p
rote
ctio
n b
ased
on
inco
rrec
t inf
orm
atio
n
that
per
son
neve
r fac
ed a
risk
of s
erio
us h
arm
with
in th
e m
eani
ng o
f Art
icle
15
of th
at d
irect
ive
that
M
embe
r Sta
te m
ust c
oncl
ude
from
this
that
the
circ
umst
ance
s und
erly
ing
the
gran
ting
of su
bsid
iary
pr
otec
tion
stat
us h
ave
chan
ged
in su
ch a
way
that
rete
ntio
n of
that
stat
us is
no
long
er ju
stifi
edrsquo
Para
58
lsquo58
Alth
ough
ther
e is
noth
ing
in th
at c
onve
ntio
n th
at e
xpre
ssly
pro
vide
s for
loss
of r
efug
ee st
atus
if
it su
bseq
uent
ly e
mer
ges t
hat t
hat s
tatu
s sho
uld
neve
r hav
e be
en c
onfe
rred
the
UN
HCR
neve
rthe
less
co
nsid
ers t
hat
in su
ch a
situ
atio
n th
e de
cisio
n gr
antin
g re
fuge
e st
atus
mus
t in
prin
cipl
e b
e an
nulle
d (H
andb
ook
on P
roce
dure
s and
Crit
eria
for D
eter
min
ing
Refu
gee
Stat
us u
nder
the
1951
Con
vent
ion
and
the
1967
Pro
toco
l rel
atin
g to
the
Stat
us o
f Ref
ugee
s 1
992
par
agra
ph 1
17)rsquo
IdiC-1011828 March
2019
Ahm
ed C
-369
17
13 Sep
tembe
r2018
M a
nd O
ther
s (R
evoc
atio
n of
refu
gee
stat
us)
C-39
116
C-
771
7 an
d C-
-81
7
14 M
ay2019
Ahm
edbe
kova
C-652164 Octob
er
2018
Moh
amed
MrsquoB
odj
v Eacutet
at b
elge
C-5
421
3
18 Decem
ber2
014
HTC-3731324 June
20
15
Sala
hadi
n Ab
dulla
and
O
ther
s jo
ined
case
s C-
175
08 C
-176
08
C-
178
08 a
nd C
-179
08
2 March2010
Alo
and
Oss
o C
-443
14
andC-444141 M
arch
2016
Hala
fC-5281130 May
2013
58 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
62
lsquo62
It sh
ould
also
be
adde
d th
at w
hen
mak
ing
the
asse
ssm
ents
whi
ch it
is fo
r the
Mem
ber S
tate
co
ncer
ned
to c
arry
out
und
er th
e pr
oced
ures
refe
rred
to in
par
agra
phs 6
0 an
d 61
of t
he p
rese
nt
judg
men
t th
at M
embe
r Sta
te is
obl
iged
to o
bser
ve i
n pa
rtic
ular
the
fund
amen
tal r
ight
of t
he p
erso
n co
ncer
ned
to re
spec
t for
priv
ate
and
fam
ily li
fe w
hich
is g
uara
ntee
d w
ithin
thei
r res
pect
ive
scop
e of
ap
plic
atio
n b
y Ar
ticle
7 o
f the
Cha
rter
of F
unda
men
tal R
ight
s of t
he E
urop
ean
Uni
on a
nd b
y Ar
ticle
8 o
f th
e EC
HRrsquo
B an
d D
C-5
709
and
C-101099 Novem
ber
2010
CJEU
[GC]
Zuba
r Haq
bin
v Fe
dera
al
Agen
tsch
ap v
oor d
e op
vang
van
asi
elzo
eker
s
C-23
318
EUC
201
995
6
121
120
19
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
20
of D
irect
ive
2013
33EU
ofthe
Europ
eanParliam
enta
ndofthe
Cou
ncilof26 June
201
3laying
dow
nstan
dardsforth
ere
cept
ion
of a
pplic
ants
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n
Appl
ican
ts fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
mdash D
irect
ive
2013
33
EU mdash
Art
icle
20(
4) a
nd (5
) mdash S
erio
us b
reac
h of
the
rule
s of t
he a
ccom
mod
atio
n ce
ntre
s as w
ell a
s ser
ious
ly v
iole
nt b
ehav
iour
mdash S
cope
of t
he M
embe
r St
ates
rsquo rig
ht to
det
erm
ine
the
sanc
tions
app
licab
le mdash
Una
ccom
pani
ed m
inor
mdash R
educ
tion
or w
ithdr
awal
of
mat
eria
l rec
eptio
n co
nditi
ons
Para
34
lsquo34
In th
e sp
ecifi
c sit
uatio
n of
lsquovul
nera
ble
pers
onsrsquo
with
in th
e m
eani
ng o
f Art
icle
21
of th
e di
rect
ive
w
hich
incl
ude
unac
com
pani
ed m
inor
s suc
h as
Mr H
aqbi
n at
the
time
whe
n he
was
the
subj
ect o
f the
sa
nctio
n at
issu
e in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s th
e se
cond
subp
arag
raph
of A
rtic
le 1
7(2)
of t
he d
irect
ive
stat
es
that
Mem
ber S
tate
s mus
t ens
ure
that
such
a st
anda
rd o
f liv
ing
is lsquom
etrsquorsquo
Para
45
lsquo45
Firs
t th
e ho
st M
embe
r Sta
te m
ust r
espe
ct fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts
as i
s app
aren
t fro
m re
cita
l 35
of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
3 C
onse
quen
tly A
rtic
le 2
0 of
that
dire
ctiv
e m
ust b
e re
ad a
nd in
terp
rete
d in
the
light
in
part
icul
ar o
f res
pect
for h
uman
dig
nity
and
the
right
s of t
he c
hild
ens
hrin
ed r
espe
ctiv
ely
in A
rtic
les 1
an
d 24
of t
he C
hart
errsquo
CHEZ
Raz
pred
elen
ie
Bulg
aria
C-8
314
16 Ju
ly2015
Abub
acar
r Jaw
o v
Bund
esre
publ
ik
Deut
schl
and
[GC]
C-1631719 March
2019
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 59
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
46
lsquo46
With
rega
rd sp
ecifi
cally
to th
e re
quire
men
t to
ensu
re a
dig
nifie
d st
anda
rd o
f liv
ing
it is
app
aren
t fr
om re
cita
l 35
of D
irect
ive
2013
33
that
the
dire
ctiv
e se
eks t
o en
sure
full
resp
ect f
or h
uman
dig
nity
and
to
pro
mot
e th
e ap
plic
atio
n in
ter a
lia o
f Art
icle
1 o
f the
Cha
rter
of F
unda
men
tal R
ight
s and
has
to b
e im
plem
ente
d ac
cord
ingl
y In
that
rega
rd r
espe
ct fo
r hum
an d
igni
ty w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of t
hat a
rtic
le
requ
ires t
he p
erso
n co
ncer
ned
not f
indi
ng h
imse
lf or
her
self
in a
situ
atio
n of
ext
rem
e m
ater
ial p
over
ty
that
doe
s not
allo
w th
at p
erso
n to
mee
t his
or h
er m
ost b
asic
nee
ds su
ch a
s a p
lace
to li
ve f
ood
clo
thin
g an
d pe
rson
al h
ygie
ne a
nd th
at u
nder
min
es h
is or
her
phy
sical
or m
enta
l hea
lth o
r put
s tha
t per
son
in
a st
ate
of d
egra
datio
n in
com
patib
le w
ith h
uman
dig
nity
rsquo
Para
53
lsquo53
Las
tly i
t is i
mpo
rtan
t to
note
that
whe
re th
e ap
plic
ant
as in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s is
an
unac
com
pani
ed m
inor
tha
t is t
o sa
y a
lsquovul
nera
ble
pers
onrsquo w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 2
1 of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
3 th
e au
thor
ities
of t
he M
embe
r Sta
tes
whe
n im
posin
g sa
nctio
ns p
ursu
ant t
o Ar
ticle
20(
4) o
f the
di
rect
ive
mus
t esp
ecia
lly ta
ke in
to a
ccou
nt a
ccor
ding
to th
e se
cond
sent
ence
of A
rtic
le 2
0(5)
ther
eof
of
the
part
icul
ar si
tuat
ion
of th
e m
inor
and
of t
he p
rinci
ple
of p
ropo
rtio
nalit
yrsquo
Para
54
lsquo54
The
pro
visio
n of
such
supp
ort i
s jus
tifie
d sin
ce th
e ad
optio
n of
such
a sa
nctio
n do
es n
ot m
ean
that
th
e re
cept
ion
right
has
lega
lly c
ome
to a
n en
d F
or a
s lon
g as
the
min
or is
aut
horis
ed to
rem
ain
on th
e te
rrito
ry o
f the
hos
t Mem
ber S
tate
for t
he p
urpo
ses o
f exa
min
atio
n of
his
appl
icat
ion
(25)
and
pro
vide
d th
at h
e do
es n
ot h
ave
suffi
cien
t ow
n m
eans
to su
ppor
t his
esse
ntia
l nee
ds (
26) t
hat S
tate
mus
t ens
ure
rece
ptio
n co
nditi
ons t
hat e
nabl
e hi
m to
hav
e ac
cess
to h
ealth
car
e an
d to
live
in d
igni
ty (
27) A
lthou
gh
the
EU le
gisla
ture
doe
s not
spec
ify th
e m
easu
res w
hich
the
host
Mem
ber S
tate
is sp
ecifi
cally
requ
ired
to a
dopt
in o
rder
to e
nsur
e a
dign
ified
stan
dard
of l
ivin
g th
ose
mea
sure
s mus
t cov
er th
e m
ost e
ssen
tial
right
s at t
he ti
me
whe
n th
e ap
plic
ant i
s with
out s
ourc
es o
f inc
ome
nam
ely
the
poss
ibili
ty to
be
hous
ed
fed
and
clot
hed
rsquo
60 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
56
lsquo56
In th
e lig
ht o
f all
of th
e fo
rego
ing
the
answ
er to
the
ques
tions
refe
rred
is th
at A
rtic
le 2
0(4)
and
(5) o
f Di
rect
ive
2013
33
read
in th
e lig
ht o
f Art
icle
1 o
f the
Cha
rter
of F
unda
men
tal R
ight
s m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
d as
mea
ning
that
a M
embe
r Sta
te c
anno
t am
ong
the
sanc
tions
that
may
be
impo
sed
on a
n ap
plic
ant f
or
serio
us b
reac
hes o
f the
rule
s of t
he a
ccom
mod
atio
n ce
ntre
s as w
ell a
s ser
ious
ly v
iole
nt b
ehav
iour
pro
vide
fo
r a sa
nctio
n co
nsist
ing
in th
e w
ithdr
awal
eve
n te
mpo
rary
of m
ater
ial r
ecep
tion
cond
ition
s w
ithin
th
e m
eani
ng o
f Art
icle
2(f)
and
(g) o
f the
dire
ctiv
e re
latin
g to
hou
sing
food
or c
loth
ing
in so
far a
s it
wou
ld h
ave
the
effe
ct o
f dep
rivin
g th
e ap
plic
ant o
f the
pos
sibili
ty o
f mee
ting
his o
r her
mos
t bas
ic n
eeds
Th
e im
posit
ion
of o
ther
sanc
tions
und
er A
rtic
le 2
0(4)
of t
he d
irect
ive
mus
t un
der a
ll ci
rcum
stan
ces
co
mpl
y w
ith th
e co
nditi
ons l
aid
dow
n in
Art
icle
20(
5) th
ereo
f in
clud
ing
thos
e co
ncer
ning
the
prin
cipl
e of
pr
opor
tiona
lity
and
resp
ect f
or h
uman
dig
nity
In
the
case
of a
n un
acco
mpa
nied
min
or t
hose
sanc
tions
m
ust
in th
e lig
ht i
nter
alia
of A
rtic
le 2
4 of
the
Char
ter o
f Fun
dam
enta
l Rig
hts
be
dete
rmin
ed b
y ta
king
pa
rtic
ular
acc
ount
of t
he b
est i
nter
ests
of t
he c
hild
rsquo
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 61
Advo
cate
Gen
eral
(AG
) Opi
nion
CJEU
(Opi
nion
of
Advo
cate
Ge
nera
l Sh
arps
ton)
A B
and
C v
St
aats
secr
etar
is v
an
Veili
ghei
d en
Just
itie
C-14
813
to C
-150
13
EUC
201
421
11
170
720
14
Opi
nion
afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ns a
bro
ad c
once
ptua
l que
stio
n as
to w
heth
er E
U
law
lim
its th
e ac
tions
of M
embe
r Sta
tes w
hen
asse
ssin
g re
ques
ts fo
r asy
lum
mad
e by
an
appl
ican
t who
fe
ars p
erse
cutio
n in
his
coun
try
of o
rigin
on
grou
nds o
f his
sexu
al o
rient
atio
n
Dire
ctiv
e 20
058
5EC
mdash A
sses
smen
t of a
pplic
atio
ns fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
mdash A
sses
smen
t of f
acts
an
d ci
rcum
stan
ces mdash
Cre
dibi
lity
of a
n ap
plic
antrsquos
ave
rred
sexu
al o
rient
atio
n)
Para
s 6
0 ndash
61
lsquo60
With
in th
e Eu
rope
an U
nion
hom
osex
ualit
y is
no lo
nger
con
sider
ed to
be
a m
edic
al o
r psy
chol
ogic
al
cond
ition
(65
) The
re is
no
reco
gnise
d m
edic
al e
xam
inat
ion
that
can
be
appl
ied
in o
rder
to e
stab
lish
a pe
rson
rsquos se
xual
orie
ntat
ion
As r
egar
ds th
e rig
ht to
priv
ate
life
inte
rfere
nce
with
an
indi
vidu
alrsquos
right
to
his s
exua
l orie
ntat
ion
can
only
be
mad
e w
here
int
er a
lia i
t is p
rovi
ded
for b
y la
w a
nd it
com
plie
s with
the
prin
cipl
e of
pro
port
iona
lity
lsquo61
Sin
ce h
omos
exua
lity
is no
t a m
edic
al c
ondi
tion
any
pur
port
ed m
edic
al te
st a
pplie
d to
det
erm
ine
an a
pplic
antrsquos
sexu
al o
rient
atio
n co
uld
not
in m
y vi
ew b
e co
nsid
ered
to b
e co
nsist
ent w
ith A
rtic
le 3
of
the
Char
ter
It w
ould
also
fail
the
prop
ortio
nalit
y re
quire
men
t (Ar
ticle
52(
1)) i
n re
latio
n to
a v
iola
tion
of th
e rig
ht to
priv
acy
and
fam
ily li
fe b
ecau
se b
y de
finiti
on s
uch
a te
st c
anno
t ach
ieve
the
obje
ctiv
e of
es
tabl
ishin
g an
indi
vidu
alrsquos
sexu
al o
rient
atio
n It
follo
ws t
hat m
edic
al te
sts c
anno
t be
used
for t
he p
urpo
se
of e
stab
lishi
ng a
n ap
plic
antrsquos
cre
dibi
lity
as t
hey
infr
inge
Art
icle
s 3 a
nd 7
of t
he C
hart
errsquo
Min
ister
voo
r Im
mig
ratie
en
Asie
l v
X Y
and
Z v
Min
ister
vo
or Im
mig
ratie
en
Asie
l jo
ined
cas
es
C-19
912
to C
-201
12
7 Novem
ber2
013
Bund
esre
publ
ik
Deut
schl
and
v Y
and
Z
C-71
11
and
C-99
11
5 Septem
ber2
012
Sala
hadi
n Ab
dulla
an
d O
ther
s C
-175
08
C-
176
08 C
-178
08
andC-17
908
2 M
arch
2010
Sam
ba D
iouf
C-6
910
28
July201
1
M C
-277
11
22
Novem
ber2
012
ECtH
R V
an K
uumlck
v Ge
rman
y
no 359
689712 June
20
03
62 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Euro
pean
Cou
rt o
f Hum
an R
ight
s (EC
tHR)
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
Aire
y v
Irela
nd
no 628
973
091
019
79
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 8
ECH
R ndash
right
to re
spec
t for
priv
ate
and
fam
ily li
fe ndash
Sta
te fa
iled
to a
ct
Artic
le 6
(1) ndash
righ
t to
fair
hear
ing
-the
app
lican
t was
with
out a
n ef
fect
ive
right
of a
cces
s to
the
High
Cou
rt
for p
urpo
ses o
f sep
arat
ion
proc
eedi
ngs
Para
24
lsquo24
The
Gov
ernm
ent c
onte
nd th
at th
e ap
plic
atio
n do
es e
njoy
acc
ess t
o th
e Hi
gh C
ourt
sinc
e sh
e is
free
to
go b
efor
e th
at c
ourt
with
out t
he a
ssist
ance
of a
law
yer
lsquoThe
Cou
rt d
oes n
ot re
gard
this
poss
ibili
ty o
f its
elf
as c
oncl
usiv
e of
the
mat
ter
The
Conv
entio
n is
inte
nded
to g
uara
ntee
not
righ
ts th
at a
re th
eore
tical
or i
lluso
ry b
ut ri
ghts
that
are
pra
ctic
al a
nd
effe
ctiv
e T
his i
s par
ticul
arly
so o
f the
righ
t of a
cces
s to
the
cour
ts in
vie
w o
f the
pro
min
ent p
lace
hel
d in
a d
emoc
ratic
soci
ety
by th
e rig
ht to
a fa
ir tr
ial
It m
ust t
here
fore
be
asce
rtai
ned
whe
ther
Mrs
Aire
yrsquos
appe
aran
ce b
efor
e th
e Hi
gh C
ourt
with
out t
he a
ssist
ance
of a
law
yer w
ould
be
effe
ctiv
e in
the
sens
e of
w
heth
er sh
e w
ould
be
able
to p
rese
nt h
er c
ase
prop
erly
and
satis
fact
orily
lsquoCon
trad
icto
ry v
iew
s on
this
ques
tion
wer
e ex
pres
sed
by th
e Go
vern
men
t and
the
Com
miss
ion
durin
g th
e or
al h
earin
gs I
t see
ms c
erta
in to
the
Cour
t tha
t the
app
lican
t wou
ld b
e at
a d
isadv
anta
ge if
her
hus
band
w
ere
repr
esen
ted
by a
law
yer a
nd sh
e w
ere
not
Qui
te a
part
from
this
even
tual
ity i
t is n
ot re
alist
ic i
n th
e Co
urtrsquos
opi
nion
to
supp
ose
that
in
litig
atio
n of
this
natu
re t
he a
pplic
ant c
ould
effe
ctiv
ely
cond
uct h
er
own
case
des
pite
the
assis
tanc
e w
hich
as w
as st
ress
ed b
y th
e Go
vern
men
t th
e ju
dge
affo
rds t
o pa
rtie
s ac
ting
in p
erso
n
lsquoIn Ir
elan
d a
dec
ree
of ju
dici
al se
para
tion
is no
t obt
aina
ble
in a
Dist
rict C
ourt
whe
re th
e pr
oced
ure
is re
lativ
ely
simpl
e b
ut o
nly
in th
e Hi
gh C
ourt
A sp
ecia
list i
n Iri
sh fa
mily
law
Mr
Alan
J S
hatt
er r
egar
ds
the
High
Cou
rt a
s the
leas
t acc
essib
le c
ourt
not
onl
y be
caus
e ldquof
ees p
ayab
le fo
r rep
rese
ntat
ion
befo
re it
ar
e ve
ry h
ighrdquo
but
also
by
reas
on o
f the
fact
that
ldquoth
e pr
oced
ure
for i
nstit
utin
g pr
ocee
ding
s
is co
mpl
ex
part
icul
arly
in th
e ca
se o
f tho
se p
roce
edin
gs w
hich
mus
t be
com
men
ced
by a
pet
ition
rdquo su
ch a
s tho
se fo
r se
para
tion
(Fam
ily L
aw in
the
Repu
blic
of I
rela
nd D
ublin
197
7 p
21)
Klas
s and
Oth
ers
no
502
971
6 Septem
ber1
978
De W
ilde
Oom
s and
Ve
rsyp
nos
283
266
28
356
6 2
899
66
18 Ju
ne197
1
Koumlni
gno 62
3273
28 Ju
ne197
8
Gold
ern
o 44
5170
21 Feb
ruary19
75
Belg
ian
lingu
istic
cas
e
nos 1
474
62 1
677
62
1691
62
176
963
19
946
3 2
126
64
23 Ju
ly196
8
Lued
icke
Bel
kace
m
and
Koccedil
nos
621
073
68
777
5 7
132
75
28 Novem
ber1
978
Mar
ckxno 68
3374
13 Ju
ne197
9
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 63
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquoFur
ther
mor
e li
tigat
ion
of th
is ki
nd i
n ad
ditio
n to
invo
lvin
g co
mpl
icat
ed p
oint
s of l
aw n
eces
sitat
es p
roof
of
adu
ltery
unn
atur
al p
ract
ices
or
as in
the
pres
ent c
ase
cru
elty
to
esta
blish
the
fact
s e
xper
t evi
denc
e m
ay h
ave
to b
e te
nder
ed a
nd w
itnes
ses m
ay h
ave
to b
e fo
und
cal
led
and
exam
ined
Wha
t is m
ore
m
arita
l disp
utes
ofte
n en
tail
an e
mot
iona
l inv
olve
men
t tha
t is s
carc
ely
com
patib
le w
ith th
e de
gree
of
obje
ctiv
ity re
quire
d by
adv
ocac
y in
cou
rt
lsquoFor
thes
e re
ason
s th
e Co
urt c
onsid
ers i
t mos
t im
prob
able
that
a p
erso
n in
Mrs
Aire
yrsquos p
ositi
on
(see
par
agra
ph 8
abo
ve) c
an e
ffect
ivel
y pr
esen
t his
or h
er o
wn
case
Thi
s vie
w is
cor
robo
rate
d by
the
Gove
rnm
entrsquos
repl
ies t
o th
e qu
estio
ns p
ut b
y th
e Co
urt
repl
ies w
hich
reve
al th
at in
eac
h of
the
255
judi
cial
sepa
ratio
n pr
ocee
ding
s ini
tiate
d in
Irel
and
in th
e pe
riod
from
Janu
ary
1972
to D
ecem
ber 1
978
w
ithou
t exc
eptio
n th
e pe
titio
ner w
as re
pres
ente
d by
a la
wye
r (se
e pa
ragr
aph
11 a
bove
)
lsquoThe
Cou
rt c
oncl
udes
from
the
fore
goin
g th
at th
e po
ssib
ility
to a
ppea
r in
pers
on b
efor
e th
e Hi
gh C
ourt
do
es n
ot p
rovi
de th
e ap
plic
ant w
ith a
n ef
fect
ive
right
of a
cces
s and
hen
ce t
hat i
t also
doe
s not
con
stitu
te
a do
mes
tic re
med
y w
hose
use
is d
eman
ded
by A
rtic
le 2
6 (a
rt 2
6)rsquo
Delc
ourt
no2
689
65
17 Ja
nuary19
70
De W
ilde
Oom
s and
Ve
rsyp
nos
283
266
28
356
6 2
899
66
10 M
arch197
2
Nat
iona
l Uni
on
of B
elgi
an P
olic
e
no 446
470
27
Octob
er197
5
ECtH
R
D v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no 302
4096
020
519
97
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
rem
oval
to S
t Kitt
s ndash in
hum
an a
nd d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t ndash m
edic
al tr
eatm
ent
Para
s 5
1-54
lsquo51
The
Cou
rt n
otes
that
the
appl
ican
t is i
n th
e ad
vanc
ed st
ages
of a
term
inal
and
incu
rabl
e ill
ness
At t
he
date
of t
he h
earin
g it
was
obs
erve
d th
at th
ere
had
been
a m
arke
d de
clin
e in
his
cond
ition
and
he
had
to
be tr
ansf
erre
d to
a h
ospi
tal
His c
ondi
tion
was
giv
ing
rise
to c
once
rn (s
ee p
arag
raph
21
abov
e) T
he li
mite
d qu
ality
of l
ife h
e no
w e
njoy
s res
ults
from
the
avai
labi
lity
of so
phist
icat
ed tr
eatm
ent a
nd m
edic
atio
n in
th
e U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m a
nd th
e ca
re a
nd k
indn
ess a
dmin
ister
ed b
y a
char
itabl
e or
gani
satio
n H
e ha
s bee
n co
unse
lled
on h
ow to
app
roac
h de
ath
and
has f
orm
ed b
onds
with
his
care
rs (s
ee p
arag
raph
19
abov
e)
Soer
ing
v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
mn
o 14
03888
7 July198
9
Vilv
araj
ah a
nd O
ther
s v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no
s 131
638
7
1316
487
131
658
7
1344
787
134
488
7
30 Octob
er199
1
64 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo52
The
abr
upt w
ithdr
awal
of t
hese
faci
litie
s will
ent
ail t
he m
ost d
ram
atic
con
sequ
ence
s for
him
It i
s not
di
sput
ed th
at h
is re
mov
al w
ill h
aste
n hi
s dea
th T
here
is a
serio
us d
ange
r tha
t the
con
ditio
ns o
f adv
ersit
y w
hich
aw
ait h
im in
St K
itts w
ill fu
rthe
r red
uce
his a
lread
y lim
ited
life
expe
ctan
cy a
nd su
bjec
t him
to
acut
e m
enta
l and
phy
sical
suffe
ring
Any
med
ical
trea
tmen
t whi
ch h
e m
ight
hop
e to
rece
ive
ther
e co
uld
not c
onte
nd w
ith th
e in
fect
ions
whi
ch h
e m
ay p
ossib
ly c
ontr
act o
n ac
coun
t of h
is la
ck o
f she
lter a
nd o
f a
prop
er d
iet a
s wel
l as e
xpos
ure
to th
e he
alth
and
sani
tatio
n pr
oble
ms w
hich
bes
et th
e po
pula
tion
of
St K
itts (
see
para
grap
h 32
abo
ve)
Whi
le h
e m
ay h
ave
a co
usin
in S
t Kitt
s (se
e pa
ragr
aph
18 a
bove
) no
ev
iden
ce h
as b
een
addu
ced
to sh
ow w
heth
er th
is pe
rson
wou
ld b
e w
illin
g or
in a
pos
ition
to a
tten
d to
the
need
s of a
term
inal
ly il
l man
The
re is
no
evid
ence
of a
ny o
ther
form
of m
oral
or s
ocia
l sup
port
Nor
has
it
been
show
n w
heth
er th
e ap
plic
ant w
ould
be
guar
ante
ed a
bed
in e
ither
of t
he h
ospi
tals
on th
e isl
and
whi
ch a
ccor
ding
to th
e Go
vern
men
t ca
re fo
r AID
S pa
tient
s (se
e pa
ragr
aph
17 a
bove
)
lsquo53
In v
iew
of t
hese
exc
eptio
nal c
ircum
stan
ces a
nd b
earin
g in
min
d th
e cr
itica
l sta
ge n
ow re
ache
d in
th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
fata
l illn
ess
the
impl
emen
tatio
n of
the
deci
sion
to re
mov
e hi
m to
St K
itts w
ould
am
ount
to
inhu
man
trea
tmen
t by
the
resp
onde
nt S
tate
in v
iola
tion
of A
rtic
le 3
(art
3)
The
Cour
t also
not
es in
th
is re
spec
t tha
t the
resp
onde
nt S
tate
has
ass
umed
resp
onsib
ility
for t
reat
ing
the
appl
ican
trsquos c
ondi
tion
since
Aug
ust 1
994
He
has b
ecom
e re
liant
on
the
med
ical
and
pal
liativ
e ca
re w
hich
he
is at
pre
sent
re
ceiv
ing
and
is no
dou
bt p
sych
olog
ical
ly p
repa
red
for d
eath
in a
n en
viro
nmen
t whi
ch is
bot
h fa
mili
ar a
nd
com
pass
iona
te A
lthou
gh it
can
not b
e sa
id th
at th
e co
nditi
ons w
hich
wou
ld c
onfr
ont h
im in
the
rece
ivin
g co
untr
y ar
e th
emse
lves
a b
reac
h of
the
stan
dard
s of A
rtic
le 3
(art
3)
his r
emov
al w
ould
exp
ose
him
to
a re
al ri
sk o
f dyi
ng u
nder
mos
t dist
ress
ing
circ
umst
ance
s and
wou
ld th
us a
mou
nt to
inhu
man
trea
tmen
t W
ithou
t cal
ling
into
que
stio
n th
e go
od fa
ith o
f the
und
erta
king
giv
en to
the
Cour
t by
the
Gove
rnm
ent (
see
para
grap
h 44
abo
ve)
it is
to b
e no
ted
that
the
abov
e co
nsid
erat
ions
mus
t be
seen
as w
ider
in sc
ope
than
th
e qu
estio
n w
heth
er o
r not
the
appl
ican
t is f
it to
trav
el b
ack
to S
t Kitt
s
lsquo54
Aga
inst
this
back
grou
nd th
e Co
urt e
mph
asise
s tha
t alie
ns w
ho h
ave
serv
ed th
eir p
rison
sent
ence
s an
d ar
e su
bjec
t to
expu
lsion
can
not i
n pr
inci
ple
clai
m a
ny e
ntitl
emen
t to
rem
ain
in th
e te
rrito
ry o
f a
Cont
ract
ing
Stat
e in
ord
er to
con
tinue
to b
enef
it fr
om m
edic
al s
ocia
l or o
ther
form
s of a
ssist
ance
pr
ovid
ed b
y th
e ex
pelli
ng S
tate
dur
ing
thei
r sta
y in
pris
on H
owev
er i
n th
e ve
ry e
xcep
tiona
l circ
umst
ance
s of
this
case
and
giv
en th
e co
mpe
lling
hum
anita
rian
cons
ider
atio
ns a
t sta
ke i
t mus
t be
conc
lude
d th
at th
e im
plem
enta
tion
of th
e de
cisio
n to
rem
ove
the
appl
ican
t wou
ld b
e a
viol
atio
n of
Art
icle
3 (a
rt 3
)rsquo
Chah
al v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(GC
) no
224
1493
15 Novem
ber1
995
Ahm
ed v
Aus
tria
no
259
64
17 Decem
ber1
996
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 65
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
Mub
ilanz
ila M
ayek
a an
d Ka
niki
Mitu
nga
v Be
lgiu
m
no 131
7803
121
020
06
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
dete
ntio
n ndash
depo
rtat
ion
ndash in
hum
an tr
eatm
ent o
f a c
hild
ndash A
rtic
le 8
ECH
R ndash
resp
ect f
or
fam
ily li
fe ndash
the
dete
ntio
n of
a fi
ve-y
ear-o
ld c
hild
in a
n ad
ult f
acili
ty w
ith o
nly
tele
phon
e co
mm
unic
atio
n w
ith h
er m
othe
r
Para
50
lsquo50
The
Cou
rt n
otes
that
the
seco
nd a
pplic
ant
who
was
onl
y fiv
e ye
ars o
ld w
as h
eld
in th
e sa
me
cond
ition
sas a
dults
She
was
det
aine
d in
a c
entr
e th
at h
ad in
itial
ly b
een
desig
ned
for a
dults
eve
n th
ough
sh
e w
as u
nacc
ompa
nied
by
her p
aren
ts a
nd n
o on
e ha
d be
en a
ssig
ned
to lo
ok a
fter h
er N
o m
easu
res
wer
e ta
ken
to e
nsur
e th
at sh
e re
ceiv
ed p
rope
r cou
nsel
ling
and
educ
atio
nal a
ssist
ance
from
qua
lifie
d pe
rson
nel s
peci
ally
man
date
d fo
r tha
t pur
pose
Tha
t situ
atio
n la
sted
for t
wo
mon
ths
It is
furt
her n
oted
th
at th
e re
spon
dent
Sta
te h
ave
ackn
owle
dged
that
the
plac
e of
det
entio
n w
as n
ot a
dapt
ed to
her
nee
ds
and
that
ther
e w
ere
no a
dequ
ate
stru
ctur
es in
pla
ce a
t the
tim
ersquo
A v
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 10019978841096
23 Sep
tembe
r1998
Adam
v G
erm
any
(dec
) no
43359984 Octob
er
2001
Aert
s v B
elgi
um
no 6119978451051
30 Ju
ly1998
Amro
llahi
v D
enm
ark
no
568110011 July
2002
Amuu
r v Fr
ance
no
197769225 June
19
96
Beld
joud
i v Fr
ance
no
120838626 March
1992
Beye
ler v
Ital
y
no 33202965 Janu
ary
2000
Botta
v It
aly
no
1531996772973
24 Fe
bruary1998
Boul
tif v
Switz
erla
nd
no 54273002August
2001
Boza
no v
Fran
ce
no 999082
18 Decem
ber1
986
66 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Caki
ci v
Turk
ey [G
C]
no 23657948 Ju
ly
1999
Chah
al v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(GC
) no
2241493
15 Novem
ber1
995
Čonka
v Be
lgiu
m
no 51564995 Fe
bruary
2002
DG v
Irel
and
no
394749816 May
2002
De W
ilde
Oom
s and
Ve
rsyp
nos
283
266
28
356
6 2
899
66
18 Ju
ne1971
Erik
sson
v Sw
eden
no
113738522 June
19
89
Gnah
oreacute
v Fr
ance
no
4003198
19 Sep
tembe
r2000
Ham
iyet
Kap
lan
and
Oth
ers v
Turk
ey
no 3674997
13 Sep
tembe
r2005
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 67
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Hokk
anen
v F
inla
nd
no 1982392
23 Sep
tembe
r1994
Igna
ccol
o-Ze
nide
v
Rom
ania
no
3167996
25 Janu
ary2000
Joha
nsen
v N
orw
ay
no 1738390
7 Au
gust
199
6
KF v
Ger
man
y
no 1441996765962
27 Novem
ber1
997
Keeg
an v
Irel
and
no 1696990
26 M
ay1994
Mok
rani
v Fr
ance
no
5220699
15 Ju
ly2003
Mou
staq
uim
v B
elgi
um
no 1231386
18 Fe
bruary1991
Niem
ietz
v G
erm
any
no
1371088
16 Decem
ber1
992
Nuut
inen
v F
inla
nd
no 328429627 June
20
00
Olss
on v
Swed
en (n
o 1)
no
104658324 March
1988
68 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Osm
an v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no
8719978711083
28 Octob
er1998
Rani
nen
v Fi
nlan
d
no 1521996771972
16 Decem
ber1
997
Selm
ouni
v Fr
ance
GC
no
258039428 July
1999
Slive
nko
v La
tvia
[GC]
no
48321999 Octob
er
2003
Soer
ing
v Un
ited
King
domno 1403888
7 July1989
Von
Hann
over
v
Germ
any
no
593200024 June
20
04
Wee
ks v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no 978782
2 March1987
Win
terw
erp
v th
e Ne
ther
land
s no
63017324 Octob
er
1979
Z an
d O
ther
s v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m G
C
no 293299510 May
2001
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 69
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
Sala
h Sh
eekh
v th
e N
ethe
rland
s
no 194
804
110
120
07
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
effe
ctiv
e re
med
y ndash
Net
herla
nds a
utho
ritie
s ref
used
to su
spen
d ex
pulsi
on p
endi
ng
a de
cisio
n on
his
obje
ctio
n ag
ains
t the
man
ner o
f tha
t exp
ulsio
n
Para
s 1
40-1
49
lsquo140
Th
e Co
urt c
onsid
ers i
t mos
t unl
ikel
y th
at th
e ap
plic
ant
who
is a
mem
ber o
f the
Ash
raf m
inor
ity
ndash on
e of
the
grou
ps m
akin
g up
the
Bena
diri
(or R
eer H
amar
) min
ority
gro
up ndash
and
who
hai
ls fr
om th
e so
uth
of S
omal
ia w
ould
be
able
to o
btai
n pr
otec
tion
from
a c
lan
in th
e ldquor
elat
ivel
y sa
ferdquo
area
s A
ccor
ding
to
the
Gove
rnm
entrsquos
Nov
embe
r 200
4 co
untr
y re
port
ind
ivid
uals
who
do
not o
rigin
ate
from
Som
alila
nd
or P
untla
nd a
nd w
ho a
re u
nabl
e to
cla
im c
lan
prot
ectio
n th
ere
alm
ost i
nvar
iabl
y en
d up
in m
isera
ble
sett
lem
ents
for t
he in
tern
ally
disp
lace
d w
ith n
o re
al c
hanc
e of
pro
per i
nteg
ratio
n T
hey
are
said
to h
ave
a m
argi
nal
isola
ted
posit
ion
in so
ciet
y w
hich
rend
ers t
hem
vul
nera
ble
and
mor
e lik
ely
than
mos
t to
be
the
vict
ims o
f crim
e In
deed
the
thre
e m
ost v
ulne
rabl
e gr
oups
in S
omal
ia a
re sa
id to
be
IDPs
min
oriti
es
and
retu
rnee
s fro
m e
xile
If e
xpel
led
to th
e ldquor
elat
ivel
y sa
ferdquo
area
s th
e ap
plic
ant w
ould
fall
into
all
thre
e ca
tego
ries
In th
is co
ntex
t it s
houl
d fu
rthe
r be
note
d th
at a
gain
acc
ordi
ng to
the
Gove
rnm
ent
ther
e ar
e so
few
Ben
adiri
in th
e ldquor
elat
ivel
y sa
ferdquo
area
s tha
t no
gene
ral s
tate
men
ts c
an b
e m
ade
abou
t the
ir po
sitio
n th
ere
How
ever
the
Cou
rt c
onsid
ers t
hat i
t is n
ot n
eces
sary
to e
xam
ine
whe
ther
the
cond
ition
s in
whi
ch
the
appl
ican
t is l
ikel
y to
end
up
if ex
pelle
d to
Som
alila
nd o
r Pun
tland
are
such
as t
o ex
pose
him
to a
real
ris
k of
bei
ng su
bjec
ted
to tr
eatm
ent i
n vi
olat
ion
of A
rtic
le 3
sin
ce it
is o
f the
opi
nion
that
that
pro
visio
n st
ands
in a
ny e
vent
in th
e w
ay o
f suc
h an
exp
ulsio
n fo
r the
follo
win
g re
ason
s
Ahm
ed v
Aus
tria
no
259
6494
17 Decem
ber1
996
Chah
al v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(GC
) no
224
1493
15 Novem
ber1
995
Čonka
v Be
lgiu
m
no 515
6499
5 Februa
ry200
2
HLR
v Fr
ance
no
245
739429 Ap
ril
1997
Hila
l v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 452
76996 M
arch
2001
Mam
atku
lov
and
Aska
rov
v Tu
rkey
[GC]
no
s 468
279
9 an
d 46
951
99
Selm
ouni
v F
ranc
e [GC]2
8 July199
9
no 258
0394
4 Februa
ry200
5
70 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
141
In
its p
ositi
on p
aper
of J
anua
ry 2
004
and
its a
dviso
ry o
f Nov
embe
r 200
5 U
NHC
R st
ates
its
oppo
sitio
n to
the
forc
ed re
turn
of r
ejec
ted
asyl
um se
eker
s to
area
s of S
omal
ia fr
om w
hich
they
do
not
orig
inat
e e
mph
asisi
ng th
at th
ere
is no
inte
rnal
flig
ht a
ltern
ativ
e av
aila
ble
in S
omal
ia I
t is n
ever
thel
ess
to b
e no
ted
that
it d
oes n
ot a
ppea
r to
be U
NHC
Rrsquos p
ositi
on th
at th
e in
divi
dual
s con
cern
ed w
ould
hav
e a
wel
l-fou
nded
fear
of p
erse
cutio
n w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 1
of t
he 1
951
Conv
entio
n in
the
area
s it
cons
ider
s saf
e R
athe
r th
e or
gani
satio
nrsquos c
once
rns a
re fo
cuse
d on
the
poss
ible
des
tabi
lisin
g ef
fect
s of
an
influ
x of
invo
lunt
ary
retu
rnee
s on
the
alre
ady
over
stre
tche
d ab
sorp
tion
capa
city
of S
omal
iland
an
d Pu
ntla
nd a
s wel
l as t
he d
ire si
tuat
ion
in w
hich
retu
rnee
s fin
d th
emse
lves
Whi
le th
e Co
urt b
y no
m
eans
wish
es to
det
ract
from
the
acut
e pe
rtin
ence
of s
ocio
-eco
nom
ic a
nd h
uman
itaria
n co
nsid
erat
ions
to
the
issue
of f
orce
d re
turn
s of r
ejec
ted
asyl
um se
eker
s to
a pa
rtic
ular
par
t of t
heir
coun
try
or o
rigin
su
ch c
onsid
erat
ions
do
not n
eces
saril
y ha
ve a
bea
ring
and
cer
tain
ly n
ot a
dec
isive
one
on
the
ques
tion
whe
ther
the
pers
ons c
once
rned
wou
ld fa
ce a
real
risk
of i
ll-tr
eatm
ent w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 3
of
the
Conv
entio
n in
thos
e ar
eas
Mor
eove
r Ar
ticle
3 d
oes n
ot a
s suc
h p
recl
ude
Cont
ract
ing
Stat
es fr
om
plac
ing
relia
nce
on th
e ex
isten
ce o
f an
inte
rnal
flig
ht a
ltern
ativ
e in
thei
r ass
essm
ent o
f an
indi
vidu
alrsquos
clai
m th
at a
retu
rn to
his
or h
er c
ount
ry o
f orig
in w
ould
exp
ose
him
or h
er to
a re
al ri
sk o
f bei
ng
subj
ecte
d to
trea
tmen
t pro
scrib
ed b
y th
at p
rovi
sion
How
ever
the
Cou
rt h
as p
revi
ously
hel
d th
at th
e in
dire
ct re
mov
al o
f an
alie
n to
an
inte
rmed
iary
cou
ntry
doe
s not
affe
ct th
e re
spon
sibili
ty o
f the
exp
ellin
g Co
ntra
ctin
g St
ate
to e
nsur
e th
at h
e or
she
is no
t as
a re
sult
of it
s dec
ision
to e
xpel
exp
osed
to tr
eatm
ent
cont
rary
to A
rtic
le 3
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n It
sees
no
reas
on to
hol
d di
ffere
ntly
whe
re th
e ex
pulsi
on is
as i
n th
e pr
esen
t cas
e to
take
pla
ce n
ot to
an
inte
rmed
iary
cou
ntry
but
to a
par
ticul
ar re
gion
of t
he c
ount
ry
of o
rigin
The
Cou
rt c
onsid
ers t
hat a
s a p
reco
nditi
on fo
r rel
ying
on
an in
tern
al fl
ight
alte
rnat
ive
cert
ain
guar
ante
es h
ave
to b
e in
pla
ce t
he p
erso
n to
be
expe
lled
mus
t be
able
to tr
avel
to th
e ar
ea c
once
rned
ga
in a
dmitt
ance
and
sett
le th
ere
faili
ng w
hich
an
issue
und
er A
rtic
le 3
may
aris
e th
e m
ore
so if
in th
e ab
senc
e of
such
gua
rant
ees t
here
is a
pos
sibili
ty o
f the
exp
elle
e en
ding
up
in a
par
t of t
he c
ount
ry o
f or
igin
whe
re h
e or
she
may
be
subj
ecte
d to
ill-t
reat
men
t
TI v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(dec)no
438
4498
7 March200
0
Vilv
araj
ah a
nd O
ther
s v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no
s 131
638
7
1316
487
131
658
7
1344
787
134
488
7
30 Octob
er199
1
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 71
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
142
The
Cou
rt o
bser
ves t
hat t
he a
utho
ritie
s of S
omal
iland
hav
e iss
ued
a de
cree
ndash w
hich
adm
itted
ly
has n
ot b
een
enfo
rced
to d
ate
ndash or
derin
g al
l disp
lace
d pe
rson
s not
orig
inal
ly fr
om S
omal
iland
to le
ave
the
coun
try
and
that
the
Punt
land
aut
horit
ies a
re sa
id to
hav
e gr
own
war
y of
non
-Pun
tland
ers c
omin
g to
th
eir t
errit
ory
and
have
mad
e it
clea
r tha
t the
y w
ill o
nly
adm
it to
the
terr
itory
they
con
trol
thos
e w
ho a
re
of th
e sa
me
clan
or w
ho w
ere
prev
ious
ly re
siden
t in
the
area
Mor
e im
port
antly
the
aut
horit
ies o
f bot
h en
titie
s hav
e in
form
ed th
e re
spon
dent
Gov
ernm
ent o
f the
ir op
posit
ion
to th
e fo
rced
dep
orta
tions
of
in
the
case
of S
omal
iland
non
-Som
alila
nder
s and
in
the
case
of P
untla
nd ldquo
refu
gees
rega
rdle
ss o
f whi
ch
part
of S
omal
ia th
ey o
rigin
ally
cam
e fr
om w
ithou
t see
king
eith
er th
e ac
cept
ance
or p
rior a
ppro
valrdquo
of t
he
Punt
land
aut
horit
ies
In a
dditi
on b
oth
the
Som
alila
nd a
nd P
untla
nd a
utho
ritie
s hav
e in
dica
ted
that
they
do
not
acc
ept t
he E
U tr
avel
doc
umen
t
143
Whi
le it
app
ears
that
the
stan
ce o
f the
Som
alila
nd a
nd P
untla
nd a
utho
ritie
s has
led
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
Gov
ernm
ent t
o re
frai
n fr
om e
xpel
ling
reje
cted
asy
lum
seek
ers b
elon
ging
to th
e Be
nadi
ri to
thos
e re
gion
s th
e N
ethe
rland
s Gov
ernm
ent h
ave
insis
ted
that
such
exp
ulsio
ns a
re p
ossib
le a
nd h
ave
poin
ted
out t
hat i
n th
e ev
ent o
f an
expe
llee
bein
g de
nied
ent
ry h
e or
she
wou
ld b
e al
low
ed to
retu
rn to
the
Net
herla
nds
Bea
ring
in m
ind
that
acc
ordi
ng to
info
rmat
ion
prov
ided
by
the
resp
onde
nt G
over
nmen
t So
mal
is ar
e fr
ee to
ent
er a
nd le
ave
the
coun
try
as th
e St
ate
bord
ers a
re su
bjec
t to
very
few
con
trol
s th
e Co
urt a
ccep
ts th
at th
e Go
vern
men
t may
wel
l suc
ceed
in re
mov
ing
the
appl
ican
t to
eith
er S
omal
iland
or
Pun
tland
(alth
ough
in th
e lig
ht o
f a re
cent
BBC
repo
rt th
is is
not c
erta
in)
How
ever
thi
s by
no m
eans
co
nstit
utes
a g
uara
ntee
that
the
appl
ican
t on
ce th
ere
will
be
allo
wed
or e
nabl
ed to
stay
in th
e te
rrito
ry
and
with
no
mon
itorin
g of
dep
orte
d re
ject
ed a
sylu
m se
eker
s tak
ing
plac
e th
e Go
vern
men
t hav
e no
way
of
ver
ifyin
g w
heth
er o
r not
the
appl
ican
t suc
ceed
s in
gain
ing
adm
ittan
ce I
n vi
ew o
f the
pos
ition
take
n by
th
e Pu
ntla
nd a
nd p
artic
ular
ly th
e So
mal
iland
aut
horit
ies
it se
ems t
o th
e Co
urt r
athe
r unl
ikel
y th
at th
e ap
plic
ant w
ould
be
allo
wed
to se
ttle
ther
e C
onse
quen
tly t
here
is a
real
cha
nce
of h
is be
ing
rem
oved
or
of h
is ha
ving
no
alte
rnat
ive
but t
o go
to a
reas
of t
he c
ount
ry w
hich
bot
h th
e Go
vern
men
t and
UN
HCR
cons
ider
uns
afe
144
As r
egar
ds th
e isl
ands
off
the
coas
t of s
outh
ern
Som
alia
whi
ch a
re c
onsid
ered
ldquore
lativ
ely
safe
rdquo by
the
Gove
rnm
ent
the
Cour
t not
es th
at th
ese
are
inha
bite
d by
mem
bers
of t
he D
arod
Mar
ehan
cla
n an
d of
a m
inor
ity d
iffer
ent f
rom
the
one
to w
hich
the
appl
ican
t bel
ongs
It h
as n
ot b
een
sugg
este
d th
at
the
appl
ican
t wou
ld b
e ab
le to
obt
ain
clan
pro
tect
ion
ther
e A
s with
Som
alila
nd a
nd P
untla
nd t
here
are
sim
ilarly
no
guar
ante
es th
at th
e ap
plic
ant w
ould
be
able
to se
ttle
ther
e q
uite
apa
rt fr
om th
e fa
ct th
at th
e isl
ands
can
be
reac
hed
only
via
ldquore
lativ
ely
unsa
ferdquo
terr
itory
72 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
145
The
que
stio
n m
ust t
here
fore
be
exam
ined
whe
ther
if t
he a
pplic
ant w
ere
to e
nd u
p in
are
as o
f So
mal
ia o
ther
than
Som
alila
nd o
r Pun
tland
he
wou
ld ru
n a
real
risk
of b
eing
exp
osed
to tr
eatm
ent
cont
rary
to A
rtic
le 3
In
this
cont
ext
the
Cour
t is a
war
e th
at th
e Go
vern
men
t do
not c
onsid
er a
reas
in
Som
alia
ldquore
lativ
ely
unsa
ferdquo
beca
use
of a
ny ri
sk th
at in
divi
dual
s may
run
ther
e of
bei
ng su
bjec
ted
to
trea
tmen
t in
brea
ch o
f Art
icle
3 o
f the
Con
vent
ion
but
bec
ause
of a
n ov
eral
l situ
atio
n w
hich
is su
ch th
at
in th
e op
inio
n of
the
Min
ister
of I
mm
igra
tion
and
Inte
grat
ion
a re
turn
to th
ose
area
s wou
ld c
onst
itute
an
exce
ptio
nally
har
sh m
easu
re
146
The
Cou
rt c
onsid
ers t
hat t
he tr
eatm
ent t
o w
hich
the
appl
ican
t cla
imed
he
had
been
subj
ecte
d pr
ior
to h
is le
avin
g So
mal
ia c
an b
e cl
assif
ied
as in
hum
an w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 3
mem
bers
of a
cla
n be
at k
icke
d ro
bbed
int
imid
ated
and
har
asse
d hi
m o
n m
any
occa
sions
and
mad
e hi
m c
arry
out
forc
ed
labo
ur M
embe
rs o
f the
sam
e cl
an a
lso k
illed
his
fath
er a
nd ra
ped
his s
ister
The
Cou
rt n
otes
that
the
part
icul
ar ndash
and
con
tinui
ng ndash
vul
nera
bilit
y to
this
kind
of h
uman
righ
ts a
buse
s of m
embe
rs o
f min
oriti
es
like
the
Ashr
af h
as b
een
wel
l-doc
umen
ted
147
Whi
le th
e N
ethe
rland
s aut
horit
ies w
ere
of th
e op
inio
n th
at th
e pr
oble
ms e
xper
ienc
ed b
y th
e ap
plic
ant w
ere
to b
e se
en a
s a c
onse
quen
ce o
f the
gen
eral
ly u
nsta
ble
situa
tion
in w
hich
crim
inal
gan
gs
freq
uent
ly b
ut a
rbitr
arily
int
imid
ated
and
thre
aten
ed p
eopl
e th
e Co
urt i
s of t
he v
iew
that
that
is
insu
ffici
ent t
o re
mov
e th
e tr
eatm
ent m
eted
out
to th
e ap
plic
ant f
rom
the
scop
e of
Art
icle
3 A
s set
out
ab
ove
the
exist
ence
of t
he o
blig
atio
n no
t to
expe
l is n
ot d
epen
dent
on
whe
ther
the
risk
of th
e tr
eatm
ent
stem
s fro
m fa
ctor
s whi
ch in
volv
e th
e re
spon
sibili
ty d
irect
or i
ndire
ct o
f the
aut
horit
ies o
f the
rece
ivin
g co
untr
y an
d Ar
ticle
3 m
ay th
us a
lso a
pply
in si
tuat
ions
whe
re th
e da
nger
em
anat
es fr
om p
erso
ns o
r gr
oups
of p
erso
ns w
ho a
re n
ot p
ublic
offi
cial
s W
hat i
s rel
evan
t in
this
cont
ext i
s whe
ther
the
appl
ican
t w
as a
ble
to o
btai
n pr
otec
tion
agai
nst a
nd se
ek re
dres
s for
the
acts
per
petr
ated
aga
inst
him
The
Cou
rt
cons
ider
s tha
t thi
s was
not
the
case
Mor
eove
r ha
ving
rega
rd to
the
info
rmat
ion
avai
labl
e th
e Co
urt i
s fa
r fro
m p
ersu
aded
that
the
situa
tion
has u
nder
gone
such
a su
bsta
ntia
l cha
nge
for t
he b
ette
r tha
t it c
ould
be
said
that
the
risk
of th
e ap
plic
ant b
eing
subj
ecte
d to
this
kind
of t
reat
men
t ane
w h
as b
een
rem
oved
or
that
he
wou
ld b
e ab
le to
obt
ain
prot
ectio
n fr
om th
e (lo
cal)
auth
oriti
es T
here
is n
o in
dica
tion
ther
efor
e
that
the
appl
ican
t wou
ld fi
nd h
imse
lf in
a si
gnifi
cant
ly d
iffer
ent s
ituat
ion
from
the
one
he fl
ed
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 73
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
148
The
Cou
rt w
ould
furt
her t
ake
issue
with
the
natio
nal a
utho
ritie
srsquo a
sses
smen
t tha
t the
trea
tmen
t to
whi
ch th
e ap
plic
ant w
as su
bjec
ted
was
met
ed o
ut a
rbitr
arily
It a
ppea
rs fr
om th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
acc
ount
that
he
and
his
fam
ily w
ere
targ
eted
bec
ause
they
bel
onge
d to
a m
inor
ity a
nd fo
r tha
t rea
son
it w
as k
now
n th
at th
ey h
ad n
o m
eans
of p
rote
ctio
n th
ey w
ere
easy
pre
y as
wer
e th
e ot
her t
hree
Ash
raf f
amili
es li
ving
in
the
sam
e vi
llage
The
Cou
rt w
ould
add
that
in
its o
pini
on t
he a
pplic
ant c
anno
t be
requ
ired
to e
stab
lish
the
exist
ence
of f
urth
er sp
ecia
l dist
ingu
ishin
g fe
atur
es c
once
rnin
g hi
m p
erso
nally
in o
rder
to sh
ow th
at h
e w
as a
nd c
ontin
ues t
o be
per
sona
lly a
t risk
In
this
cont
ext i
t is t
rue
that
a m
ere
poss
ibili
ty o
f ill-
trea
tmen
t is
insu
ffici
ent t
o gi
ve ri
se to
a b
reac
h of
Art
icle
3 S
uch
a sit
uatio
n ar
ose
in th
e ca
se o
f Vilv
araj
ah a
nd
Oth
ers v
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
whe
re th
e Co
urt f
ound
that
the
poss
ibili
ty o
f det
entio
n an
d ill
-tre
atm
ent
exist
ed in
resp
ect o
f you
ng m
ale
Tam
ils re
turn
ing
to S
ri La
nka
The
Cou
rt th
en in
siste
d th
at th
e ap
plic
ants
sh
ow th
at sp
ecia
l dist
ingu
ishin
g fe
atur
es e
xist
ed in
thei
r cas
es th
at c
ould
or o
ught
to h
ave
enab
led
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
aut
horit
ies t
o fo
rese
e th
at th
ey w
ould
be
trea
ted
in a
man
ner i
ncom
patib
le w
ith
Artic
le 3
How
ever
in
the
pres
ent c
ase
the
Cour
t con
sider
s o
n th
e ba
sis o
f the
app
lican
trsquos a
ccou
nt a
nd
the
info
rmat
ion
abou
t the
situ
atio
n in
the
ldquorel
ativ
ely
unsa
ferdquo
area
s of S
omal
ia in
so fa
r as m
embe
rs o
f the
As
hraf
min
ority
are
con
cern
ed t
hat i
t is f
ores
eeab
le th
at o
n hi
s ret
urn
the
appl
ican
t wou
ld b
e ex
pose
d to
trea
tmen
t in
brea
ch o
f Art
icle
3 I
t mig
ht re
nder
the
prot
ectio
n of
fere
d by
that
pro
visio
n ill
usor
y if
in
add
ition
to th
e fa
ct o
f his
belo
ngin
g to
the
Ashr
af ndash
whi
ch th
e Go
vern
men
t hav
e no
t disp
uted
ndash t
he
appl
ican
t wer
e re
quire
d to
show
the
exist
ence
of f
urth
er sp
ecia
l dist
ingu
ishin
g fe
atur
es
149
The
fore
goin
g co
nsid
erat
ions
are
suffi
cien
t to
enab
le th
e Co
urt t
o co
nclu
de th
at th
e ex
pulsi
on o
f the
ap
plic
ant t
o So
mal
ia a
s env
isage
d by
the
resp
onde
nt G
over
nmen
t wou
ld b
e in
vio
latio
n of
Art
icle
3 o
f the
Co
nven
tion
rsquo
74 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
N v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no 265
6505
270
520
08
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
rem
oval
to U
gand
a ndash
inhu
man
and
deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent ndash
med
ical
trea
tmen
t
Para
s 4
2-45
lsquo42
In su
mm
ary
the
Cour
t obs
erve
s tha
t sin
ce D
v t
he U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m it
has
con
siste
ntly
app
lied
the
follo
win
g pr
inci
ples
Alie
ns w
ho a
re su
bjec
t to
expu
lsion
can
not i
n pr
inci
ple
clai
m a
ny e
ntitl
emen
t to
rem
ain
in th
e te
rrito
ry o
f a C
ontr
actin
g St
ate
in o
rder
to c
ontin
ue to
ben
efit
from
med
ical
soc
ial o
r ot
her f
orm
s of a
ssist
ance
and
serv
ices
pro
vide
d by
the
expe
lling
Sta
te T
he fa
ct th
at th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
ci
rcum
stan
ces
incl
udin
g hi
s life
exp
ecta
ncy
wou
ld b
e sig
nific
antly
redu
ced
if he
wer
e to
be
rem
oved
from
th
e Co
ntra
ctin
g St
ate
is no
t suf
ficie
nt in
itse
lf to
giv
e ris
e to
bre
ach
of A
rtic
le 3
The
dec
ision
to re
mov
e an
alie
n w
ho is
suffe
ring
from
a se
rious
men
tal o
r phy
sical
illn
ess t
o a
coun
try
whe
re th
e fa
cilit
ies f
or
the
trea
tmen
t of t
hat i
llnes
s are
infe
rior t
o th
ose
avai
labl
e in
the
Cont
ract
ing
Stat
e m
ay ra
ise a
n iss
ue
unde
r Art
icle
3 b
ut o
nly
in a
ver
y ex
cept
iona
l cas
e w
here
the
hum
anita
rian
grou
nds a
gain
st th
e re
mov
al
are
com
pelli
ng I
n th
e D
v th
e U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m c
ase
the
very
exc
eptio
nal c
ircum
stan
ces w
ere
that
the
appl
ican
t was
crit
ical
ly il
l and
app
eare
d to
be
clos
e to
dea
th c
ould
not
be
guar
ante
ed a
ny n
ursin
g or
m
edic
al c
are
in h
is co
untr
y of
orig
in a
nd h
ad n
o fa
mily
ther
e w
illin
g or
abl
e to
car
e fo
r him
or p
rovi
de h
im
with
eve
n a
basic
leve
l of f
ood
shel
ter o
r soc
ial s
uppo
rt
lsquo43
The
Cou
rt d
oes n
ot e
xclu
de th
at th
ere
may
be
othe
r ver
y ex
cept
iona
l cas
es w
here
the
hum
anita
rian
cons
ider
atio
ns a
re e
qual
ly c
ompe
lling
How
ever
it c
onsid
ers t
hat i
t sho
uld
mai
ntai
n th
e hi
gh th
resh
old
set i
n D
v t
he U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m a
nd a
pplie
d in
its s
ubse
quen
t cas
e-la
w w
hich
it re
gard
s as c
orre
ct in
pr
inci
ple
giv
en th
at in
such
cas
es th
e al
lege
d fu
ture
har
m w
ould
em
anat
e no
t fro
m th
e in
tent
iona
l act
s or
omiss
ions
of p
ublic
aut
horit
ies o
r non
-Sta
te b
odie
s b
ut in
stea
d fr
om a
nat
ural
ly o
ccur
ring
illne
ss a
nd th
e la
ck o
f suf
ficie
nt re
sour
ces t
o de
al w
ith it
in th
e re
ceiv
ing
coun
try
Ahm
ed v
Aus
tria
no
259
6494
17 Decem
ber1
996
Aire
y v
Irela
nd
no 628
973
9 Octob
er
1979
Ameg
niga
n v
the
Net
herla
nds (
dec)
no
256
2904
25 Novem
ber2
004
Arci
la H
enao
v th
e N
ethe
rland
s (de
c)
no 136
690324 June
20
03
BB v
Fra
nce
no
4719
98950
116
5
7 Septem
ber1
998
Bens
aid
v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
mn
o 44
59998
6 Februa
ry200
1
D v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no
302
40962 M
ay
1997
HLR
v Fr
ance
no
245
739429 Ap
ril
1997
Jallo
h v
Germ
any
[GC]
no
548
100011 July
2006
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 75
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo44
Alth
ough
man
y of
the
right
s it c
onta
ins h
ave
impl
icat
ions
of a
soci
al o
r eco
nom
ic n
atur
e th
e Co
nven
tion
is es
sent
ially
dire
cted
at t
he p
rote
ctio
n of
civ
il an
d po
litic
al ri
ghts
(see
Aire
y v
Irel
and
9 Octob
er197
9sect26SeriesA
no 32
)Fu
rthe
rmorein
herentin
thewho
leofthe
Con
ventionisasearch
for a
fair
bala
nce
betw
een
the
dem
ands
of t
he g
ener
al in
tere
st o
f the
com
mun
ity a
nd th
e re
quire
men
ts
of th
e pr
otec
tion
of th
e in
divi
dual
rsquos fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts (
see
Soer
ing
v th
e U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m7
July198
9
sect89
SeriesA
no 16
1)A
dvan
cesinmed
icalsc
ienceto
getherwith
socialand
econo
micdifferen
ces
betw
een
coun
trie
s e
ntai
l tha
t the
leve
l of t
reat
men
t ava
ilabl
e in
the
Cont
ract
ing
Stat
e an
d th
e co
untr
y of
or
igin
may
var
y co
nsid
erab
ly W
hile
it is
nec
essa
ry g
iven
the
fund
amen
tal i
mpo
rtan
ce o
f Art
icle
3 in
the
Conv
entio
n sy
stem
for
the
Cour
t to
reta
in a
deg
ree
of fl
exib
ility
to p
reve
nt e
xpul
sion
in v
ery
exce
ptio
nal
case
s A
rtic
le 3
doe
s not
pla
ce a
n ob
ligat
ion
on th
e Co
ntra
ctin
g St
ate
to a
llevi
ate
such
disp
ariti
es th
roug
h th
e pr
ovisi
on o
f fre
e an
d un
limite
d he
alth
car
e to
all
alie
ns w
ithou
t a ri
ght t
o st
ay w
ithin
its j
urisd
ictio
n
A fin
ding
to th
e co
ntra
ry w
ould
pla
ce to
o gr
eat a
bur
den
on th
e Co
ntra
ctin
g St
ates
lsquo45
Fin
ally
the
Cour
t obs
erve
s tha
t al
thou
gh th
e pr
esen
t app
licat
ion
in c
omm
on w
ith m
ost o
f tho
se
refe
rred
to a
bove
is c
once
rned
with
the
expu
lsion
of a
per
son
with
an
HIV
and
Aids
-rel
ated
con
ditio
n th
e sa
me
prin
cipl
es m
ust a
pply
in re
latio
n to
the
expu
lsion
of a
ny p
erso
n af
flict
ed w
ith a
ny se
rious
nat
ural
ly
occu
rrin
g ph
ysic
al o
r men
tal i
llnes
s whi
ch m
ay c
ause
suffe
ring
pai
n an
d re
duce
d lif
e ex
pect
ancy
and
re
quire
spec
ialis
ed m
edic
al tr
eatm
ent w
hich
may
not
be
so re
adily
ava
ilabl
e in
the
appl
ican
trsquos c
ount
ry o
f or
igin
or w
hich
may
be
avai
labl
e on
ly a
t sub
stan
tial c
ostrsquo
Kara
ra v
Fin
land
no
409
009829 May
1998
Keen
an v
Uni
ted
King
domn
o 27
22995
3 Ap
ril200
1
Kudl
a v
Pola
nd
[GC]n
o 30
21096
26
Octob
er200
0
Nda
ngoy
a v
Swed
en
(dec)22
June
200
4
no 178
6803
Pret
ty v
Uni
ted
King
domn
o 23
4602
29 April20
02
Pric
e v
Uni
ted
King
domn
o 33
39496
10
July200
1
SCC
v Sw
eden
(dec)no
465
5399
15 Feb
ruary20
00
Saad
i v It
aly
[GC]
no
372
0106
28 Feb
ruary20
08
Soer
ing
v Un
ited
King
dom
no 14
03888
7 July198
9
76 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
MSS
v B
elgi
um a
nd
Gre
ece
no 306
9609
210
120
11
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
cond
ition
s of d
eten
tion
ndash Ar
ticle
13
ECHR
ndash sh
ortc
omin
gs in
the
asyl
um p
roce
dure
Para
219
lsquo219
The
Cou
rt h
as h
eld
on n
umer
ous o
ccas
ions
that
to fa
ll w
ithin
the
scop
e of
Art
icle
3 th
e ill
- tre
atm
ent
mus
t att
ain
a m
inim
um le
vel o
f sev
erity
The
ass
essm
ent o
f thi
s min
imum
is re
lativ
e it
dep
ends
on
all t
he
circ
umst
ance
s of t
he c
ase
such
as t
he d
urat
ion
of th
e tr
eatm
ent a
nd it
s phy
sical
or m
enta
l effe
cts a
nd i
n so
me
inst
ance
s th
e se
x a
ge a
nd st
ate
of h
ealth
of t
he v
ictim
rsquo
Para
251
lsquo251
The
Cou
rt a
ttac
hes c
onsid
erab
le im
port
ance
to th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
stat
us a
s an
asyl
um-s
eeke
r and
as
such
a m
embe
r of a
par
ticul
arly
und
erpr
ivile
ged
and
vuln
erab
le p
opul
atio
n gr
oup
in n
eed
of sp
ecia
l pr
otec
tion
It n
otes
the
exist
ence
of a
bro
ad c
onse
nsus
at t
he in
tern
atio
nal a
nd E
urop
ean
leve
l con
cern
ing
this
need
for s
peci
al p
rote
ctio
n a
s evi
denc
ed b
y th
e Ge
neva
Con
vent
ion
the
rem
it an
d th
e ac
tiviti
es o
f th
e U
NHC
R an
d th
e st
anda
rds s
et o
ut in
the
Rece
ptio
n Di
rect
ive
rsquo
Para
254
lsquo254
It o
bser
ves t
hat t
he si
tuat
ion
in w
hich
the
appl
ican
t has
foun
d hi
mse
lf is
part
icul
arly
serio
us H
e al
lege
dly
spen
t mon
ths l
ivin
g in
a st
ate
of th
e m
ost e
xtre
me
pove
rty
unab
le to
cat
er fo
r his
mos
t bas
ic
need
s fo
od h
ygie
ne a
nd a
pla
ce to
live
Add
ed to
that
was
the
ever
-pre
sent
fear
of b
eing
att
acke
d an
d ro
bbed
and
the
tota
l lac
k of
any
like
lihoo
d of
his
situa
tion
impr
ovin
g It
was
to e
scap
e fr
om th
at si
tuat
ion
of in
secu
rity
and
of m
ater
ial a
nd p
sych
olog
ical
wan
t tha
t he
trie
d se
vera
l tim
es to
leav
e Gr
eece
rsquo
AA v
Gre
ece
no
121
860822 July
2010
Amuu
r v F
ranc
e
no 197
769225 June
19
96
Assa
nidz
e v
Geor
gia
[GC]
nos
715
030
1
8 Ap
ril200
4
Bati
and
Oth
ers
v Tu
rkey
nos
330
979
6 an
d57
83400
3 Ju
ne
2004
Bosp
horu
s Hav
a Yo
llari
Turiz
m v
Tic
aret
An
onim
Sirk
eti v
Irel
and
[GC]n
o 45
03698
30
June
200
5
Bron
iow
ski v
Pol
and
[GC]n
o 31
44396
28
Sep
tembe
r200
5
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 77
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Brya
n v
Uni
ted
King
domn
o 19
17891
22
Novem
ber1
995
Budi
na v
Rus
sia (
dec)
no
456
030516 June
20
09
Caki
ci v
Tur
key
[GC]
no
236
57948 Ju
ly
1999
Cham
aiumlev
Sha
may
ev
and
Oth
ers v
Geo
rgia
an
d Ru
ssia
no
363
780212 Ap
ril
2005
Čonka
v Be
lgiu
m
no 515
6499
5 Februa
ry200
2
De W
ilde
Oom
s and
Ve
rsyp
nos
283
266
28
356
6 2
899
66
18 Ju
ne197
1
Dora
n v
Irela
nd
no 503
899931 July
2003
Gebr
emed
hin
[Gab
eram
adhi
en]
v Fr
ancen
o 25
38905
26
April20
07
HLR
v Fr
ance
no
245
739429 Ap
ril
1997
78 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Jaba
ri v T
urke
y
no 400359811 July
2000
KRS v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(dec)no
3273308
2 De
cember2
008
Kudl
a v P
olan
d [GC]no 3021096
26 Octob
er2000
Labi
ta c
Italy
[GC]
no
26772956 April
2000
Mus
ial v
Pol
and
[GC]
no
245579425 March
1999
Muumls
lim v
Turk
ey
no 535669925 Ap
ril
2005
NA v
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 259040717 July
2008
Oumlcal
an v
Turk
ey [G
C]
no 462219912 May
2005
Oršu
š and
Oth
ers
v Cro
atia
[GC]
no
157660316 March
2010
Pala
di v
Mol
dova
[GC]
no
398060510 March
2009
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 79
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Peer
s v G
reec
e
no 285249519 Ap
ril
2001
Popo
v v R
ussia
no
268530413 July
2006
Pret
ty v
Uni
ted
King
domno 234602
29 April2
002
Qur
aish
i v B
elgi
um
no 61300812 May
2009
Riad
and
Idia
b v B
elgi
um n
os 2
9787
03
and
2981
003
24 Janu
ary2008
SD v
Gre
ece
no
535410711 June
20
09
Saad
i v It
aly
[GC]
no
3720106
28 Fe
bruary2008
Sala
h Sh
eekh
v
the
Net
herla
nds
no
19480411 Janu
ary
2007
Sano
ma
Uitg
ever
s BV
v th
e Ne
ther
land
s no
3822403
14 Sep
tembe
r2010
80 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Soer
ing
v Un
ited
King
domno 1403888
7 July1989
Stap
leto
n v
Irela
nd
(dec)no
5658807
4 May2010
TI v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(dec)no
4384487
7 March2000
Tabe
sh c
Gregravec
e
no 825607
26 Novem
ber2
009
Tham
pibi
llai v
the
Neth
erla
nds
no 6135000
17 Fe
bruary2004
Tyre
r v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 58567225 Ap
ril
1978
Vene
ma
v th
e Ne
ther
land
s no
357319729 Janu
ary
2002
Vere
in g
egen
Ti
erfa
brike
n Sc
hwei
z (V
gT) v
Switz
erla
nd
(no
2) [G
C]
no 327720230 June
20
09
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 81
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Vilv
araj
ah a
nd O
ther
s v
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m
nos 1
3163
87
13
164
87 1
3165
87
13
447
87 1
3448
87
30 Octob
er1991
Y v
Russ
iano 2011307
4 De
cembe
r2008
ECtH
R
Sufi
and
Elm
i v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
nos 8
319
07 a
nd
1144
907
280
620
11
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
risk
of to
rtur
e an
d ill
-tre
atm
ent ndash
rem
oval
to c
ount
ry o
f orig
in ndash
relia
nce
on c
ount
ry
repo
rts ndash
relo
catio
n
Para
266
lsquo266
In
the
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m a
n ap
plica
tion
for a
sylu
m o
r for
subs
idia
ry p
rote
ctio
n w
ill fa
il if
the
decis
ion-
mak
er co
nsid
ers t
hat i
t wou
ld b
e re
ason
able
ndash a
nd n
ot u
ndul
y ha
rsh
ndash to
exp
ect t
he a
pplic
ant t
o re
loca
te
(Janu
zi H
amid
Gaa
far a
nd M
oham
med
v S
ecre
tary
of S
tate
for t
he H
ome
Depa
rtm
ent [
2006
] UKH
L 5 a
nd
AH (S
udan
) v S
ecre
tary
of S
tate
for t
he H
ome
Depa
rtm
ent [
2007
] UKH
L 49)
The
Cou
rt re
calls
that
Art
icle
3 do
es n
ot a
s suc
h p
reclu
de C
ontr
actin
g St
ates
from
pla
cing
relia
nce
on th
e ex
isten
ce o
f an
inte
rnal
fli
ght a
ltern
ativ
e in
thei
r ass
essm
ent o
f an
indi
vidu
alrsquos
claim
that
a re
turn
to h
is co
untr
y of
orig
in w
ould
ex
pose
him
to a
real
risk
of b
eing
subj
ecte
d to
trea
tmen
t pro
scrib
ed b
y th
at p
rovi
sion
(Sal
ah S
heek
h v
the
Net
herla
nds
no 1
948
04sect141
ECH
R20
07-I(extracts)C
haha
l v t
he U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m15 Novem
ber1
996
sect98
Rep
orts
of J
udgm
ents
and
Dec
ision
s 199
6-V
and
Hila
l v t
he U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m n
o 4
5276
99sectsect67
ndash68
ECHR
200
1-II)
How
ever
the
Cou
rt h
as h
eld
that
relia
nce
on a
n in
tern
al fl
ight
alte
rnat
ive
does
not
affe
ct th
e re
spon
sibili
ty o
f the
exp
ellin
g Co
ntra
ctin
g St
ate
to e
nsur
e th
at th
e ap
plica
nt is
not
as a
resu
lt of
its d
ecisi
on
to e
xpel
exp
osed
to tr
eatm
ent c
ontr
ary
to A
rticl
e 3
of th
e Co
nven
tion
(Sal
ah S
heek
h v
the
Net
herla
nds
cited
abo
vesect141
and
TI
v th
e Un
ited
King
dom
(dec
) n
o 4
3844
98
ECH
R 20
00-II
I) T
here
fore
as
a pr
econ
ditio
n of
rely
ing
on a
n in
tern
al fl
ight
alte
rnat
ive
cert
ain
guar
ante
es h
ave
to b
e in
pla
ce t
he p
erso
n to
be
expe
lled
mus
t be
able
to tr
avel
to th
e ar
ea co
ncer
ned
gai
n ad
mitt
ance
and
sett
le th
ere
faili
ng w
hich
an
issu
e un
der A
rticl
e 3
may
aris
e th
e m
ore
so if
in th
e ab
senc
e of
such
gua
rant
ees t
here
is a
pos
sibili
ty o
f hi
s end
ing
up in
a p
art o
f the
coun
try
of o
rigin
whe
re h
e m
ay b
e su
bjec
ted
to il
l-tre
atm
entrsquo
A v
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 10019978841096
23 Sep
tembe
r1998
Abdu
laziz
Cab
ales
and
Ba
lkan
dali
v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m n
os 9
214
80
9473
81
947
481
28
May198
5
Al-A
gha
v Ro
man
ia
no 409
3302
12 Ja
nuary20
10
Bouj
lifa
v Fr
ance
no
122
199
674
194
0
21 Octob
er199
7
Chah
al v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(GC
) no
224
1493
15 Novem
ber1
995
82 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
s 2
82-2
83
lsquo282
If t
he d
ire h
uman
itaria
n co
nditi
ons i
n So
mal
ia w
ere
sole
ly o
r eve
n pr
edom
inan
tly a
ttrib
utab
le
to p
over
ty o
r to
the
Stat
ersquos l
ack
of re
sour
ces t
o de
al w
ith a
nat
ural
ly o
ccur
ring
phen
omen
on s
uch
as
a dr
ough
t th
e te
st in
N v
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
may
wel
l hav
e be
en c
onsid
ered
to b
e th
e ap
prop
riate
on
e H
owev
er i
t is c
lear
that
whi
le d
roug
ht h
as c
ontr
ibut
ed to
the
hum
anita
rian
crisi
s th
at c
risis
is pr
edom
inan
tly d
ue to
the
dire
ct a
nd in
dire
ct a
ctio
ns o
f the
par
ties t
o th
e co
nflic
t Th
e re
port
s ind
icat
e th
at a
ll pa
rtie
s to
the
conf
lict h
ave
empl
oyed
indi
scrim
inat
e m
etho
ds o
f war
fare
in d
ense
ly p
opul
ated
ur
ban
area
s with
no
rega
rd to
the
safe
ty o
f the
civ
ilian
pop
ulat
ion
Thi
s fac
t alo
ne h
as re
sulte
d in
wid
espr
ead
disp
lace
men
t and
the
brea
kdow
n of
soci
al p
oliti
cal a
nd e
cono
mic
infr
astr
uctu
res
M
oreo
ver
the
situa
tion
has b
een
grea
tly e
xace
rbat
ed b
y al
-Sha
baab
rsquos re
fusa
l to
perm
it in
tern
atio
nal a
id
agen
cies
to o
pera
te in
the
area
s und
er it
s con
trol
des
pite
the
fact
that
bet
wee
n a
third
and
a h
alf o
f all
Som
alis
are
livin
g in
a si
tuat
ion
of se
rious
dep
rivat
ion
lsquo283
Co
nseq
uent
ly th
e Co
urt d
oes n
ot c
onsid
er th
e ap
proa
ch a
dopt
ed in
N v
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
to b
e ap
prop
riate
in th
e ci
rcum
stan
ces o
f the
pre
sent
cas
e R
athe
r it
pref
ers t
he a
ppro
ach
adop
ted
in M
SS
v
Belg
ium
and
Gre
ece
whi
ch re
quire
s it t
o ha
ve re
gard
to a
n ap
plic
antrsquos
abi
lity
to c
ater
for h
is m
ost b
asic
ne
eds
such
as f
ood
hyg
iene
and
shel
ter
his v
ulne
rabi
lity
to il
l-tre
atm
ent a
nd th
e pr
ospe
ct o
f his
situa
tion
impr
ovin
g w
ithin
a re
ason
able
tim
e-fr
ame
rsquo
D v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no
302
40962 M
ay
1997
Doug
oz v
Gre
ece
no
409
07986 M
arch
2001
HLR
v Fr
ance
no
245
739429 Ap
ril
1997
Hila
l v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 452
76996 M
arch
2001
Jaba
ri v
Turk
ey
no 400
359811 July
2000
Kley
n an
d O
ther
s v
the
Net
herla
nds
[GC]
nos
393
439
8
3965
198
431
479
8
4666
499
6 M
ay200
3
MSS
v B
elgi
um
and
Gree
ce [
GC]
no 306
9609
21 Ja
nuary20
11
Mam
atku
lov
and
Aska
rov
v Tu
rkey
[GC]
no
s 468
279
9 an
d 46
95199
4 Feb
ruary
2005
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 83
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
McF
eele
y an
d ot
hers
v
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 8317782 Octob
er
1984
Milo
sevi
c v th
e Ne
ther
land
s (de
c)
no 776310119 March
2002
MPP
Gol
ub v
Ukr
aine
(dec)no
677805
18 Octob
er2005
N v
Finl
and
no
388850226 July
2005
NA v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no
259040717 July
2008
Peer
s v G
reec
e
no 285249519 Ap
ril
2001
Pelle
grin
i v It
aly
(dec
) no
773630
1 26 May
2005
Riad
and
Idia
b v B
elgi
um n
os 2
9787
03
and
2981
003
24 Janu
ary2008
SD v
Gre
ece
no
535410711 June
20
09
84 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Saad
i v It
aly
[GC]
no
372
0106
28 Feb
ruary20
08
Said
v th
e N
ethe
rland
s
no 234
502
5 Ju
ly
2005
Sala
h Sh
eekh
v
the
Net
herla
nds
no
194
804
11 Janu
ary
2007
Selv
anay
agam
v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(dec)no
579
8100
12 Decem
ber2
002
T v
Uni
ted
King
dom
[GC]n
o 24
72494
16
Decem
ber1
999
TI v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(dec)no
438
4498
7 March200
0
Uumlne
r v th
e N
ethe
rland
s [GC]n
o 46
41099
18
Octob
er200
6
Vilv
araj
ah a
nd O
ther
s v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no
s 131
638
7
1316
487
131
658
7
1344
787
134
488
7
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 85
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
SHH
v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 603
6710
290
120
13
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
expu
lsion
to A
fgha
nist
an ndash
real
risk
of i
ll tr
eatm
ent
Para
78
lsquo78
The
Cou
rt o
bser
ves a
t the
out
set t
hat
alth
ough
the
appl
ican
t app
lied
for
and
was
refu
sed
asy
lum
in
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
he
has n
ot c
ompl
aine
d be
fore
the
Cour
t tha
t his
rem
oval
to A
fgha
nist
an w
ould
put
hi
m a
t risk
of d
elib
erat
e ill
-tre
atm
ent f
rom
any
par
ty e
ither
on
acco
unt o
f his
past
act
iviti
es w
ith H
izb-i-
Isla
mi o
r for
any
oth
er re
ason
rsquo
Para
83
lsquo83
How
ever
the
par
ties d
isput
ed w
heth
er a
ny su
ppor
t wou
ld b
e av
aila
ble
to th
e ap
plic
ant i
n Af
ghan
istan
The
Gov
ernm
ent m
aint
aine
d th
at th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
cla
im n
ot to
hav
e an
y co
ntac
t with
his
siste
rs in
Afg
hani
stan
had
bee
n im
plic
itly
reje
cted
by
the
Imm
igra
tion
Judg
e an
d th
at h
e ha
d fa
iled
to
subm
it an
y ev
iden
ce to
supp
ort t
hat c
laim
In
any
even
t he
had
not
pro
vide
d an
y re
ason
why
he
coul
d no
t mak
e co
ntac
t with
his
siste
rs u
pon
his r
etur
n to
Afg
hani
stan
By
cont
rast
the
app
lican
t did
not
acc
ept
that
this
part
of h
is cl
aim
had
bee
n re
ject
ed b
y th
e Im
mig
ratio
n Ju
dge
He
cont
inue
d to
cla
im a
s he
had
done
the
dom
estic
pro
ceed
ings
tha
t the
re w
as n
o on
e av
aila
ble
to c
are
for h
im in
Afg
hani
stan
and
that
al
thou
gh h
e ha
d tw
o sis
ters
in th
e co
untr
y th
ey w
ere
both
mar
ried
and
livin
g w
ith th
eir o
wn
fam
ilies
In
any
even
t he
no
long
er h
ad a
ny c
onta
ct w
ith e
ither
of t
hem
rsquo
Para
s 8
5-86
lsquo85
In re
latio
n to
the
appl
ican
trsquos fi
rst g
roun
d th
at h
e w
ould
be
at g
reat
er ri
sk o
f vio
lenc
e in
Afg
hani
stan
du
e to
his
disa
bilit
y th
e Co
urt n
otes
that
the
appl
ican
t has
relie
d sig
nific
antly
upo
n th
e br
ief c
omm
ents
m
ade
by th
e AI
T in
GS
(set
out
at p
arag
raph
s 28-
29 a
bove
) In
that
cas
e th
e AI
T w
hen
expl
aini
ng th
at
ther
e m
ay b
e ca
tego
ries o
f peo
ple
who
may
be
able
to e
stab
lish
an e
nhan
ced
risk
of in
disc
rimin
ate
viol
ence
in A
fgha
nist
an g
ave
as p
ossib
le e
xam
ples
bot
h th
ose
who
wou
ld b
e pe
rcei
ved
to b
e ldquoc
olla
bora
tors
rdquo an
d di
sabl
ed p
erso
ns H
owev
er t
he C
ourt
doe
s not
agr
ee th
at th
e AI
Trsquos c
omm
ents
alo
ne
can
give
subs
tant
ive
supp
ort t
o th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
cla
im I
ndee
d th
e AI
T cl
arifi
ed in
the
sam
e pa
ragr
aph
of
that
det
erm
inat
ion
that
they
wer
e un
able
to g
ive
a lis
t of r
isk c
ateg
orie
s or t
o st
ate
that
any
par
ticul
ar
occu
patio
n or
stat
us w
ould
put
a p
erso
n in
to su
ch a
cat
egor
y in
vie
w o
f the
ldquopa
ucity
of t
he e
vide
ncerdquo
be
fore
them
To
the
cont
rary
the
AIT
mer
ely
reco
rded
that
ther
e ldquom
ay b
e su
ch c
ateg
orie
srdquo d
epen
dent
up
on th
e ev
iden
ce a
vaila
ble
The
AIT
em
phas
ised
that
thei
r com
men
ts sh
ould
not
be
take
n to
indi
cate
th
at th
e di
sabl
ed w
ere
mem
bers
of e
nhan
ced
risk
grou
ps w
ithou
t pro
of to
that
effe
ct
N v
Uni
ted
King
dom
[GC]2
7 May200
8
no 265
6505
30 Octob
er199
1
UKU
T G
S (A
rtic
le 1
5(c)
in
disc
rimin
ate
viol
ence
) Af
ghan
istan
CG
[200
9] U
KAIT
000
44
21 Octob
er200
9
UKU
T H
K an
d O
ther
s (m
inor
s ndash
indi
scrim
inat
e vi
olen
ce
ndash fo
rced
recr
uitm
ent
by Ta
liban
ndash c
onta
ct
with
fam
ily m
embe
rs)
Afgh
anist
an C
G [2
010]
U
KUT
378
(IAC)
23
Novem
ber2
010
UKU
T A
A (u
natt
ende
d ch
ildre
n) A
fgha
nist
an
CG [2
012]
UKU
T 00
016
(IAC)
1 Feb
ruary20
12
UKU
T A
K (A
rtic
le 1
5(c)
) Af
ghan
istan
CG
[201
2]
UKU
T 00
163
(IAC)
18
May201
2
MSS
v B
elgi
um
and
Gree
ce [
GC]
no 306
9609
21 Ja
nuary20
11
86 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo86
The
Cou
rt c
onsid
ers i
t to
be si
gnifi
cant
that
the
appl
ican
t has
faile
d to
add
uce
any
addi
tiona
l su
bsta
ntiv
e ev
iden
ce to
supp
ort h
is cl
aim
that
disa
bled
per
sons
are
per
se a
t gre
ater
risk
of v
iole
nce
as
oppo
sed
to o
ther
diff
icul
ties s
uch
as d
iscrim
inat
ion
and
poor
hum
anita
rian
cond
ition
s th
an th
e ge
nera
l Af
ghan
pop
ulat
ion
The
evi
denc
e fr
om i
nter
alia
UN
HCR
UN
AMA
the
UN
CESC
R th
e AI
HRC
and
the
Uni
ted
Stat
es o
f Am
eric
a St
ate
Depa
rtm
ent (
see
para
grap
hs 4
1-49
abo
ve) m
akes
no
refe
renc
e to
disa
bled
pe
rson
s bei
ng a
t gre
ater
risk
of v
iole
nce
ill-t
reat
men
t or a
ttac
ks in
Afg
hani
stan
rsquo
Para
89
lsquo89
The
Cou
rt fi
nds t
hat t
he p
rinci
ples
of N
v t
he U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m sh
ould
app
ly to
the
circ
umst
ance
s of
the
pres
ent c
ase
for t
he fo
llow
ing
reas
ons
Firs
t th
e Co
urt r
ecal
ls th
at N
con
cern
ed th
e re
mov
al o
f an
HIV
-pos
itive
app
lican
t to
Uga
nda
whe
re h
er li
fesp
an w
as li
kely
to b
e re
duce
d on
acc
ount
of t
he fa
ct
that
the
trea
tmen
t fac
ilitie
s the
re w
ere
infe
rior t
o th
ose
avai
labl
e in
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
In
reac
hing
its
conc
lusio
ns t
he C
ourt
not
ed th
at th
e al
lege
d fu
ture
har
m w
ould
em
anat
e no
t fro
m th
e in
tent
iona
l act
s or
om
issio
n of
pub
lic a
utho
ritie
s or n
on-S
tate
bod
ies b
ut fr
om a
nat
ural
ly o
ccur
ring
illne
ss a
nd th
e la
ck
of su
ffici
ent r
esou
rces
to d
eal w
ith it
in th
e re
ceiv
ing
coun
try
The
Cou
rt a
lso st
ated
that
Art
icle
3 d
id n
ot
plac
e an
obl
igat
ion
on th
e Co
ntra
ctin
g St
ate
to a
llevi
ate
disp
ariti
es in
the
avai
labi
lity
of m
edic
al tr
eatm
ent
betw
een
the
Cont
ract
ing
Stat
e an
d th
e co
untr
y of
orig
in th
roug
h th
e pr
ovisi
on o
f fre
e an
d un
limite
d he
althcaretoallalienswith
outa
righ
ttostaywith
initsjurisd
ictio
n(ib
idsect44)The
Cou
rtackno
wledg
es
that
in
the
pres
ent c
ase
the
appl
ican
trsquos d
isabi
lity
cann
ot b
e co
nsid
ered
to b
e a
ldquonat
ural
lyrdquo
occu
rrin
g ill
ness
and
doe
s not
requ
ire m
edic
al tr
eatm
ent
Nev
erth
eles
s it
is c
onsid
ered
to b
e sig
nific
ant t
hat i
n bo
th
scen
ario
s the
futu
re h
arm
wou
ld e
man
ate
from
a la
ck o
f suf
ficie
nt re
sour
ces t
o pr
ovid
e ei
ther
med
ical
tr
eatm
ent o
r wel
fare
pro
visio
n ra
ther
than
the
inte
ntio
nal a
cts o
r om
issio
ns o
f the
aut
horit
ies o
f the
re
ceiv
ing
Stat
ersquo
RC v
Sw
eden
no
418
27079 M
arch
2010
Jaba
ri v
Turk
ey
no 400
359811 July
2000
Saad
i v It
aly
[GC]
no
372
0106
28 Feb
ruary20
08
Mam
atku
lov
and
Aska
rov
v Tu
rkey
[GC]
no
s 468
279
9 an
d 46
95199
4 Feb
ruary
2005
Hila
l v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 452
76996 M
arch
2001
HLR
v Fr
ance
no
245
739429 Ap
ril
1997
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 87
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
91
lsquo91
Thi
rd a
lthou
gh in
Suf
i and
Elm
i v t
he U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m c
ited
abov
e th
e Co
urt f
ollo
wed
the
appr
oach
se
t out
in M
SS
th
is w
as b
ecau
se o
f the
exc
eptio
nal a
nd e
xtre
me
cond
ition
s pre
vaili
ng in
sout
h an
d ce
ntra
l Som
alia
In
part
icul
ar t
here
was
cle
ar a
nd e
xten
sive
evid
ence
bef
ore
the
Cour
t tha
t the
hu
man
itaria
n cr
isis i
n So
mal
ia w
as p
redo
min
atel
y du
e to
the
dire
ct a
nd in
dire
ct a
ctio
ns o
f all
part
ies t
o th
e co
nflic
t who
had
em
ploy
ed in
disc
rimin
ate
met
hods
of w
arfa
re a
nd h
ad re
fuse
d to
per
mit
inte
rnat
iona
l ai
d ag
enci
es to
ope
rate
( pa
ragr
aph
282
of th
e Su
fi an
d El
mi j
udgm
ent)
On
the
curr
ent e
vide
nce
avai
labl
e
the
Cour
t is n
ot a
ble
to c
oncl
ude
that
the
situa
tion
in A
fgha
nist
an a
lbei
t ver
y se
rious
as a
resu
lt of
on
goin
g co
nflic
t is
com
para
ble
to th
at o
f sou
th a
nd c
entr
al S
omal
ia F
irst
unlik
e So
mal
ia w
hich
has
bee
n w
ithou
t a fu
nctio
ning
cen
tral
Gov
ernm
ent s
ince
199
1 A
fgha
nist
an h
as a
func
tioni
ng c
entr
al G
over
nmen
t an
d fu
nctio
ning
infr
astr
uctu
res r
emai
n in
pla
ce S
econ
d A
fgha
nist
an a
nd in
par
ticul
ar K
abul
to w
here
th
e ap
plic
ant w
ill b
e re
turn
ed r
emai
ns u
nder
Gov
ernm
ent c
ontr
ol u
nlik
e th
e m
ajor
ity o
f sou
th a
nd
cent
ral S
omal
ia w
hich
sin
ce 2
008
has
bee
n un
der t
he c
ontr
ol o
f Isla
mic
insu
rgen
ts T
hird
alth
ough
U
NHC
R ha
s obs
erve
d th
at th
e hu
man
itaria
n sp
ace
in A
fgha
nist
an is
dec
linin
g in
som
e ar
eas a
s a re
sult
of
the
cont
inui
ng in
stab
ility
(see
par
agra
ph 4
3 ab
ove)
the
re re
mai
ns a
sign
ifica
nt p
rese
nce
of in
tern
atio
nal
aid
agen
cies
in A
fgha
nist
an u
nlik
e in
Som
alia
whe
re in
tern
atio
nal a
id a
genc
ies w
ere
refu
sed
perm
issio
n to
ope
rate
in m
ultip
le a
reas
Fou
rth
eve
n th
ough
the
diffi
culti
es a
nd in
adeq
uaci
es in
the
prov
ision
for
pers
ons w
ith d
isabi
litie
s in
Afgh
anist
an c
anno
t be
unde
rsta
ted
it c
anno
t be
said
that
such
pro
blem
s are
as
a re
sult
of th
e de
liber
ate
actio
ns o
r om
issio
ns o
f the
Afg
han
auth
oriti
es ra
ther
than
att
ribut
able
to a
lack
of
reso
urce
s In
deed
the
evi
denc
e su
gges
ts th
at th
e Af
ghan
aut
horit
ies a
re ta
king
alb
eit s
mal
l st
eps t
o im
prov
e pr
ovisi
on fo
r disa
bled
per
sons
by
for e
xam
ple
the
Nat
iona
l Disa
bilit
y Ac
tion
Plan
200
8-20
11
(see
par
agra
ph 4
8 ab
ove)
and
the
prov
ision
of f
inan
cial
supp
ort b
y th
e M
inist
ry o
f Lab
our
Soci
al A
ffairs
M
arty
rs a
nd th
e Di
sabl
ed to
80
000
disa
bled
per
sons
in A
fgha
nist
an (s
ee p
arag
raph
49
abov
e) T
he C
ourt
do
es n
ot a
ccep
t tha
t the
repo
rt o
f the
Aus
tria
n Ce
ntre
for C
ount
ry o
f Orig
in a
nd A
sylu
m R
esea
rch
and
Docu
men
tatio
n (s
ee a
bove
at p
arag
raph
51)
lend
s sup
port
to th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
cla
im b
ecau
se th
at re
port
w
as p
ublis
hed
in 2
007
and
the
late
r Dec
embe
r 201
0 U
NHC
R Gu
idel
ines
mak
e no
sim
ilar r
ecom
men
datio
ns
in re
latio
n to
the
retu
rn o
f disa
bled
per
sons
to A
fgha
nist
anrsquo
N v
Fin
land
no
388
850226 July
2005
Colli
ns a
nd A
kasie
bie
v Sw
eden
(dec
) no
239
44058 M
arch
2007
Sala
h Sh
eekh
v
the
Net
herla
nds
no
194
804
11 Janu
ary
2007
NA
v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 259
040717 July
2008
Sufi
and
Elm
i v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m n
os 8
319
07
and11
44907
28 June
20
11
Al-S
kein
i and
Oth
ers
v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m [G
C]
no 557
21077 Ju
ly
2011
Neu
linge
r and
Shu
ruk
v Sw
itzer
land
[GC]
no
416
15076 Ju
ly
2010
88 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
Aden
Ahm
ed v
Mal
ta
no 553
5212
230
720
13
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
proh
ibiti
on o
f tor
ture
ndash d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t ndash A
rtic
le 5
ECH
R ndash
right
to li
bert
y an
d se
curit
y ndash
law
ful a
rres
t or d
eten
tion
ndash re
view
of l
awfu
lnes
s of d
eten
tion
ndash sp
eedi
ness
of r
evie
w
Para
99
rsquo99
In v
iew
of a
ll th
e ab
ove-
men
tione
d ci
rcum
stan
ces t
aken
as a
who
le w
hich
the
appl
ican
t as
a d
etai
ned
imm
igra
nt e
ndur
ed fo
r a to
tal o
f fou
rtee
n an
d a
half
mon
ths
and
in th
e lig
ht o
f the
app
lican
trsquos sp
ecifi
c sit
uatio
n th
e Co
urt i
s of t
he o
pini
on th
at th
e cu
mul
ativ
e ef
fect
of t
he c
ondi
tions
com
plai
ned
of
dim
inish
ed th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
hum
an d
igni
ty a
nd a
rous
ed in
her
feel
ings
of a
ngui
sh a
nd in
ferio
rity
capa
ble
of h
umili
atin
g an
d de
basin
g he
r and
pos
sibly
bre
akin
g he
r phy
sical
or m
oral
resis
tanc
e In
sum
the
Co
urt c
onsid
ers t
hat t
he c
ondi
tions
of t
he a
pplic
antrsquos
det
entio
n in
Her
mes
Blo
ck a
mou
nted
to d
egra
ding
tr
eatm
ent w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 3
of t
he C
onve
ntio
nrsquo
AA v
Gree
ce
no 121860822 July
2010
AK v
Aust
ria
no 2083292
1 De
cember1
993
Akdi
var a
nd O
ther
s v T
urke
yno 2189393
16 September1
996
Akso
y v Tu
rkey
no
2198793
18 Decem
ber1
996
Alve
r v E
ston
ia
no 6481201
8 No
vember2
005
Amie
and
Oth
ers
v Bul
garia
no 5814908
12 Fe
bruary2013
Amuu
r v Fr
ance
no
197769225 June
19
96
Anan
yev a
nd O
ther
s v R
ussia
nos
425
250
7 an
d 60
800
08
10 Janu
ary2
012
Bele
vitsk
iy v R
ussia
no
72967011 M
arch
2007
Bene
dikt
ov v
Russ
ia
no 1060210 May2007
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 89
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Bozk
ir an
d O
ther
s v
Turk
eyno 2458904
26 Fe
bruary2013
Bulu
t and
Yavu
z v Tu
rkey
(dec)no
7306501
28 M
ay2002
Card
ot v
Fran
ce
no 110698419 March
1991
Chah
al v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(GC
) no
2241493
15 Novem
ber1
995
Cior
ap v
Mol
dova
(no
2)
no 74810620 July
2010
Doug
oz v
Gre
ece
no
40907986 M
arch
2001
E v
Norw
ay
no 117018529Au
gust
1990
Fras
ik v
Pol
and
no
22933025 Janu
ary
2010
GO v
Rus
sia
no 3924903
18 Octob
er2011
90 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Gera
de
Petr
i Te
staf
erra
ta B
onici
Gh
axaq
v M
alta
no
26771075 April
2011
Gubi
n v
Russ
ia
no 82170417 June
20
10
Hand
ysid
e v
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
mno 549372
7 De
cembe
r1976
Haza
r and
Oth
ers
v Tu
rkey
(dec
) no
s 625
660
0
6256
700
625
680
0 etal10 Janu
ary2002
Iord
ache
v R
oman
ia
no 68170214 Octob
er
2008
John
ston
and
Oth
ers
v Ire
land
no 969782
18 Decem
ber1
986
Kade
m v
Mal
ta
no 55263009 Janu
ary
2003
Kara
levi
cius v
Lith
uani
a
no 53254997 April
2005
Keen
an v
Uni
ted
King
domno 2722995
3 Ap
ril2001
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 91
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Khud
oyor
ov v
Rus
sia
no 684702
8 No
vembe
r2005
Kudl
a v
Pola
nd
[GC]no 3021096
26 Octob
er2000
Loul
ed M
asso
ud
v M
altano 2434008
27 Ju
ly2010
MSS
v B
elgi
um
and
Gree
ce [
GC]
no 306960921 Janu
ary
2011
Mam
atku
lov a
nd
Aska
rov v
Turk
ey [G
C]
nos 4
6827
99
and
46951994 Fe
bruary
2005
McF
arla
ne v
Irel
and
[GC]no 3133306
10 Sep
tembe
r2010
Mus
ial v
Pol
and
[GC]
no
245579425 March
1999
Paul
and
Aud
rey
Edw
ards
v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
mno 4647799
14 M
arch2002
Peer
s v G
reec
e
no 285249519 Ap
ril
2001
92 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Popo
v v Fr
ance
no
s 394
720
7 an
d 394740719 Janu
ary
2012
Rahm
ani a
nd D
inev
a v B
ulga
riano 2011608
10 M
ay2012
Raza
v Bu
lgar
ia
no 3146508
11 Fe
bruary2010
Rehb
ock v
Slov
enia
no
2946295
28 Novem
ber2
000
Riad
and
Idia
b v B
elgi
um n
os 2
9787
03
and
2981
003
24 Janu
ary2
008
Rom
an K
aras
ev
v Rus
siano 3025103
25 Novem
ber2
010
SD v
Gree
ce
no 535410711 June
20
09
STS v
the
Neth
erla
nds
no 277057 Ju
ne2011
Saad
i v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
[GC]no 1322903
29 Janu
ary2
008
Sabe
ur B
en A
li v M
alta
no
358929729 June
20
00
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 93
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Step
hens
v M
alta
(no
1)
no 119560721 Ap
ril
2009
Step
hens
v M
alta (n
o 2)
no
337400621 Ap
ril
2009
Tabe
sh c
Gregravec
e
no 825607
26 Novem
ber2
009
Torr
eggi
ani a
nd O
ther
s v
Italy
nos
435
170
9
4688
209
554
000
9
5787
509
615
350
9
3531
510
and
37818108 Janu
ary
2013
Van
Oos
terw
ijck
v Be
lgiu
mno 765476
6 No
vembe
r1980
Vern
illo v
Fran
ce
no 1188985
20 Fe
bruary1991
Vislo
guzo
v v
Ukra
ine
no
323620220 May
2010
Wal
ker v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(dec
) no
349799725 Janu
ary
2000
94 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
X v
Swed
en
no 102308211 May
1983
X v
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 940385 M
ay1982
Z an
d O
ther
s v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m [G
C]
no 293929510 May
2001
Zarb
v M
alta
no
16631044 Ju
ly
2006
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 95
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
[GC]
Tara
khel
v S
witz
erla
nd
no 292
1712
041
120
14
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R - i
nhum
an a
nd d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t ndash sy
stem
atic
def
icie
ncie
s in
rece
ptio
n ar
rang
emen
ts in
th
e ab
senc
e of
indi
vidu
al g
uara
ntee
s con
cern
ing
care
Para
91
rsquo91
Sw
itzer
land
mus
t the
refo
re b
e co
nsid
ered
to b
ear r
espo
nsib
ility
und
er A
rtic
le 3
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n in
th
e pr
esen
t cas
ersquo
Para
99
lsquo99
With
mor
e sp
ecifi
c re
fere
nce
to m
inor
s th
e Co
urt h
as e
stab
lishe
d th
at it
is im
port
ant t
o be
ar in
min
d th
at th
e ch
ildrsquos
extr
eme
vuln
erab
ility
is th
e de
cisiv
e fa
ctor
and
take
s pre
cede
nce
over
con
sider
atio
ns
rela
ting
to th
e st
atus
of i
llega
l im
mig
rant
(see
Mub
ilanz
ila M
ayek
a an
d Ka
niki
Mitu
nga
v B
elgi
um
no 1
3178
03sect55ECH
R20
06-XIan
d Po
pov
v F
ranc
e n
os 3
9472
07
and
3947
407
sect9119 Janu
ary
2012
) Ch
ildre
n ha
ve sp
ecifi
c ne
eds t
hat a
re re
late
d in
par
ticul
ar to
thei
r age
and
lack
of i
ndep
ende
nce
bu
t also
to th
eir a
sylu
m-s
eeke
r sta
tus
The
Cou
rt h
as a
lso o
bser
ved
that
the
Conv
entio
n on
the
Righ
ts
of th
e Ch
ild e
ncou
rage
s Sta
tes t
o ta
ke th
e ap
prop
riate
mea
sure
s to
ensu
re th
at a
chi
ld w
ho is
seek
ing
to o
btai
n re
fuge
e st
atus
enj
oys p
rote
ctio
n an
d hu
man
itaria
n as
sista
nce
whe
ther
the
child
is a
lone
or
acco
mpa
nied
by
his o
r her
par
ents
(see
to th
is ef
fect
Pop
ov c
ited
abov
e sect
91)
rsquo
Para
119
lsquo119
Thi
s req
uire
men
t of ldquo
spec
ial p
rote
ctio
nrdquo o
f asy
lum
seek
ers i
s par
ticul
arly
impo
rtan
t whe
n th
e pe
rson
s con
cern
ed a
re c
hild
ren
in v
iew
of t
heir
spec
ific
need
s and
thei
r ext
rem
e vu
lner
abili
ty T
his
appl
ies e
ven
whe
n a
s in
the
pres
ent c
ase
the
child
ren
seek
ing
asyl
um a
re a
ccom
pani
ed b
y th
eir p
aren
ts
(see
Pop
ovcite
dab
ovesect91)A
ccording
lyth
ereceptioncond
ition
sforchildrenseekingasylum
mustb
ead
apte
d to
thei
r age
to
ensu
re th
at th
ose
cond
ition
s do
not ldquo
crea
te
for
them
a si
tuat
ion
of st
ress
and
an
xiet
y w
ith p
artic
ular
ly tr
aum
atic
con
sequ
ence
srdquo (s
ee m
utat
is m
utan
dis
Pop
ovcite
dab
ovesect102
)O
ther
wise
the
con
ditio
ns in
que
stio
n w
ould
att
ain
the
thre
shol
d of
seve
rity
requ
ired
to c
ome
with
in th
e sc
ope
of th
e pr
ohib
ition
und
er A
rtic
le 3
of t
he C
onve
ntio
nrsquo
Aksu
v T
urke
y [G
C]
nos 4
149
04 a
nd
4102
904
15 March
2012
Beld
joud
i v F
ranc
e
no 120
838626 March
1992
Bosp
horu
s Hav
a Yo
llari
Turiz
m v
e Ti
care
t An
onim
Sirk
eti v
Irel
and
[GC]n
o 45
03698
30
June
200
5
Budi
na v
Rus
sia (
dec)
no
456
030516 June
20
09
Chap
man
v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m [G
C]
no 272
3895
18 Ja
nuary20
01
Guer
ra a
nd
Oth
ers v
Ital
y
no 116
199
673
593
2
19 Feb
ruary19
98
HLR
v Fr
ance
no
245
739429 Ap
ril
1997
96 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
s 1
20-1
22
lsquo120
In
the
pres
ent c
ase
as t
he C
ourt
has
alre
ady
obse
rved
(see
par
agra
ph 1
15 a
bove
) in
vie
w o
f the
cu
rren
t situ
atio
n as
rega
rds t
he re
cept
ion
syst
em in
Ital
y an
d al
thou
gh th
at si
tuat
ion
is no
t com
para
ble
to th
e sit
uatio
n in
Gre
ece
whi
ch th
e Co
urt e
xam
ined
in M
SS
th
e po
ssib
ility
that
a si
gnifi
cant
num
ber
of a
sylu
m se
eker
s rem
oved
to th
at c
ount
ry m
ay b
e le
ft w
ithou
t acc
omm
odat
ion
or a
ccom
mod
ated
in
over
crow
ded
faci
litie
s with
out a
ny p
rivac
y or
eve
n in
insa
lubr
ious
or v
iole
nt c
ondi
tions
is n
ot u
nfou
nded
It
is th
eref
ore
incu
mbe
nt o
n th
e Sw
iss a
utho
ritie
s to
obta
in a
ssur
ance
s fro
m th
eir I
talia
n co
unte
rpar
ts th
at
on th
eir a
rriv
al in
Ital
y th
e ap
plic
ants
will
be
rece
ived
in fa
cilit
ies a
nd in
con
ditio
ns a
dapt
ed to
the
age
of
the
child
ren
and
that
the
fam
ily w
ill b
e ke
pt to
geth
er
lsquo121
The
Cou
rt n
otes
that
acc
ordi
ng to
the
Italia
n Go
vern
men
t fa
mili
es w
ith c
hild
ren
are
rega
rded
as
a p
artic
ular
ly v
ulne
rabl
e ca
tego
ry a
nd a
re n
orm
ally
take
n ch
arge
of w
ithin
the
SPRA
R ne
twor
k T
his
syst
em a
ppar
ently
gua
rant
ees t
hem
acc
omm
odat
ion
food
hea
lth c
are
Ital
ian
clas
ses
refe
rral
to so
cial
se
rvic
es l
egal
adv
ice
voc
atio
nal t
rain
ing
app
rent
ices
hips
and
hel
p in
find
ing
thei
r ow
n ac
com
mod
atio
n
How
ever
in
thei
r writ
ten
and
oral
obs
erva
tions
the
Italia
n Go
vern
men
t did
not
pro
vide
any
furt
her d
etai
ls on
the
spec
ific
cond
ition
s in
whi
ch th
e au
thor
ities
wou
ld ta
ke c
harg
e of
the
appl
ican
ts
Itistrue
thatatthe
hea
ringof12 Februa
ry201
4theSw
issGovernm
entstatedthatth
eFM
Ohad
be
en in
form
ed b
y th
e Ita
lian
auth
oriti
es th
at i
f the
app
lican
ts w
ere
retu
rned
to It
aly
they
wou
ld b
e ac
com
mod
ated
in B
olog
na in
one
of t
he fa
cilit
ies f
unde
d by
the
ERF
Nev
erth
eles
s in
the
abse
nce
of
deta
iled
and
relia
ble
info
rmat
ion
conc
erni
ng th
e sp
ecifi
c fa
cilit
y th
e ph
ysic
al re
cept
ion
cond
ition
s and
the
pres
erva
tion
of th
e fa
mily
uni
t th
e Co
urt c
onsid
ers t
hat t
he S
wiss
aut
horit
ies d
o no
t pos
sess
suffi
cien
t as
sura
nces
that
if r
etur
ned
to It
aly
the
appl
ican
ts w
ould
be
take
n ch
arge
of i
n a
man
ner a
dapt
ed to
the
age
of th
e ch
ildre
n
lsquo122
It f
ollo
ws t
hat
wer
e th
e ap
plic
ants
to b
e re
turn
ed to
Ital
y w
ithou
t the
Sw
iss a
utho
ritie
s hav
ing
first
ob
tain
ed in
divi
dual
gua
rant
ees f
rom
the
Italia
n au
thor
ities
that
the
appl
ican
ts w
ould
be
take
n ch
arge
of i
n a
man
ner a
dapt
ed to
the
age
of th
e ch
ildre
n an
d th
at th
e fa
mily
wou
ld b
e ke
pt to
geth
er t
here
wou
ld b
e a
viol
atio
n of
Art
icle
3 o
f the
Con
vent
ion
rsquo
Halil Yuumlksel A
kıncı
v Tu
rkey
no 39
12504
11
Decem
ber2
012
Hirs
i Jam
aa a
nd
Oth
ers v
Ital
y [G
C]
no 277
6509
23 Feb
ruary20
12
Jaba
ri v
Turk
ey
no 400
359811 July
2000
Kudl
a v
Pola
nd
[GC]n
o 30
21096
26
Octob
er200
0
M a
nd O
ther
s v
Bulg
aria
no
414
160826 July
2011
MSS
v B
elgi
um
and
Gree
ce [
GC]
no 306
9609
21 Ja
nuary20
11
Mic
haud
v F
ranc
e
no 123
2311
6 De
cembe
r201
2
Moh
amm
ed H
usse
in
and
Oth
ers v
the
Net
herla
nds a
nd It
aly
(dec)no
277
2510
2 Ap
ril201
3
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 97
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Mub
ilanz
ila M
ayek
a an
d Ka
niki
Mitu
nga
v Be
lgiu
m no
1317
803
12 Octob
er2006
Muumls
lim v
Turk
ey
no 535669926 Ap
ril
2005
Niza
mov
and
Oth
ers
v Ru
ssia
nos
226
361
3
2403
413
243
341
3
24328137 M
ay2014
Popo
v v Fr
ance
no
s 394
720
7 an
d 394740719 Janu
ary
2012
Saad
i v It
aly
[GC]
no
3720106
28 Fe
bruary2008
Sala
h Sh
eekh
v
the
Net
herla
nds
no
19480411 Janu
ary
2007
Soer
ing
v Un
ited
King
domno 1403888
7 July1989
Vilv
araj
ah a
nd O
ther
s v
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m
nos 1
3163
87
13
164
87 1
3165
87
13
447
87 1
3448
87
30 Octob
er1991
98 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
Moh
amad
c G
regravece
no 705
8611(in
French
with
Eng
lish
sum
mar
y)
111
2 2
014
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
inhu
man
and
deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent ndash
det
entio
n - u
nacc
ompa
nied
min
or ndash
effe
ctiv
e ac
cess
to
pro
cedu
res
Uno
ffici
al tr
ansla
tion
Para
84
lsquo84
How
ever
des
pite
the
fact
that
the
auth
oriti
es w
ere
unde
r an
oblig
atio
n un
der t
he re
leva
nt
dom
estic
legi
slatio
n to
pla
ce th
e ap
plic
ant i
n su
ch a
stru
ctur
e n
o st
eps w
ere
take
n in
that
dire
ctio
n T
he
Governmen
tdoe
snotprovide
anyexplana
tionasto
whyth
eau
thoritiespersis
tedasfrom3 Ja
nuary
2011
whe
n th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
med
ical
exa
min
atio
n to
ok p
lace
in
deta
inin
g hi
m a
t the
bor
der p
ost i
nste
ad
of se
ekin
g al
tern
ativ
e pl
acem
ent s
olut
ions
The
Gov
ernm
ent d
oes n
ot p
rovi
de a
ny e
vide
nce
of a
ny
atte
mpt
to m
ake
any
form
of c
onta
ct to
this
effe
ct w
ith th
e co
mpe
tent
bod
ies d
urin
g th
e en
tire
perio
d from
3 Ja
nuaryto9 M
arch201
1whe
ntheau
thoritiesatthe
borde
rposto
fSou
fliin
form
edth
epu
blic
pros
ecut
or o
f the
app
lican
trsquos m
ajor
ity a
nd th
e en
d of
the
proc
eedi
ngs u
nder
Art
icle
19
of D
ecre
e N
o
220
2007
rsquo
Para
86
lsquo86
In v
iew
of t
he fa
ct th
at th
e ap
plic
ant h
ad n
ot b
een
plac
ed in
a re
cept
ion
stru
ctur
e su
itabl
e fo
r min
ors
in
acc
orda
nce
with
the
appl
icab
le le
gisla
tion
as w
ell a
s the
impo
ssib
ility
of d
epor
ting
him
dur
ing
his
min
ority
and
the
lack
of s
teps
take
n by
the
auth
oriti
es to
do
so a
fter h
e ha
d re
ache
d th
e ag
e of
maj
ority
theCo
urtcon
clud
esth
atth
eap
plican
trsquosdeten
tionwasnotlsquolaw
fulrsquowith
inth
emea
ning
ofA
rticle5sect1f)
of th
e Co
nven
tion
and
that
ther
e w
as a
vio
latio
n of
that
pro
visio
nrsquo
FH v
Gre
ece
no
784561131 July
2014
Barja
maj
v G
reec
e
no 36657112 M
ay
2013
Rahi
mi v
Gre
ece
no
8687085 April
2011
RU
v G
reec
e
no 2237087 Ju
ne2011
CD a
nd O
ther
s v G
reec
e
nos 3
3441
10
334
681
0 an
d 33
476
10
19 Decem
ber2
013
BM v
Gre
ece
no
5360811
19 Decem
ber2
013
McG
linch
ey a
nd O
ther
s v
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 503909929 Ap
ril
2003
AF v
Gre
ece
no
537091113 June
20
13
Hous
ein
v Gr
eece
no
7182511
24 Octob
er2013
Mah
mun
di a
nd O
ther
s v
Gree
ceno 1490210
31 Ju
ly2012
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 99
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Riad
and
Idia
b v B
elgi
um n
os 2
9787
03
and
2981
003
24 Janu
ary2008
Peer
s v G
reec
e
no 285249519 Ap
ril
2001
Kudl
a v
Pola
nd
[GC]no 3021096
26 Octob
er2000
Tabe
sh c
Gregravec
e
no 825607
26 Novem
ber2
009
SD v
Gre
ece
no
535410711 June
20
09
Chah
al v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(GC
) no
2241493
15 Novem
ber1
995
100 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
Aara
bi c
Gregrave
ce
no 397
6609(in
French
with
Eng
lish
sum
mar
y)
020
4 2
015
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
dete
ntio
n ndash
acco
mm
odat
ion
cent
re ndash
effe
ctiv
e ac
cess
to p
roce
dure
s ndash u
nacc
ompa
nied
m
inor
ndash b
est i
nter
ests
of t
he c
hild
Uno
ffici
al tr
ansla
tion
Para
s 4
4-45
lsquo44
The
Cou
rt a
lso n
otes
two
othe
r ele
men
ts w
hich
supp
ort t
he v
iew
that
the
com
pete
nt a
utho
ritie
s w
ere
not l
acki
ng in
goo
d fa
ith in
dea
ling
with
the
ques
tion
of th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
age
in th
e pr
esen
t cas
e
Firs
tly o
n th
e ab
ove-
men
tione
d ar
rest
repo
rt i
n ad
ditio
n to
the
appl
ican
trsquos n
ame
and
date
of b
irth
ap
pear
the
nam
es o
f thr
ee o
ther
per
sons
who
had
dec
lare
d to
the
auth
oriti
es th
at th
ey w
ere
min
ors a
nd
had
been
regi
ster
ed a
s suc
h T
he C
ourt
thus
sees
no
part
icul
ar re
ason
why
the
appl
ican
t wou
ld n
ot h
ave
been
regi
ster
ed a
s a m
inor
if h
e ha
d hi
mse
lf de
clar
ed th
at fa
ct to
the
com
pete
nt a
utho
ritie
s It
shou
ld
be re
calle
d in
this
conn
ectio
n th
at a
t the
tim
e of
his
arre
st th
e ap
plic
ant w
as a
lmos
t eig
htee
n ye
ars o
ld
Cons
eque
ntly
sinc
e he
had
not
him
self
raise
d hi
s min
ority
to th
e do
mes
tic a
utho
ritie
s it
wou
ld n
ot h
ave
been
obv
ious
for t
hem
to c
onsid
er th
is po
ssib
ility
on
thei
r ow
n in
itiat
ive
Fur
ther
mor
e th
e Co
urt n
otes
thaton28
July200
9theOfficeofthe
UnitedNationsHighCo
mmiss
ione
rforRefug
eesinformed
the
domestic
autho
ritieso
fthe
app
lican
trsquosre
alageThe
AliensPoliceDirectoratewasdiligentand
on30
July
2009
it re
ferr
ed th
e m
atte
r to
the
com
pete
nt p
ublic
pro
secu
tor i
n or
der t
o tr
ansf
er th
e ap
plic
ant t
o ac
com
mod
atio
n fo
r min
ors
lsquo45
The
Cou
rt c
onsid
ers t
hat t
he c
ondu
ct o
f the
com
pete
nt a
utho
ritie
s des
crib
ed a
bove
supp
orts
the
idea
th
at th
ey a
cted
in g
ood
faith
in th
is re
gard
Con
sequ
ently
the
Cou
rt c
anno
t im
pute
to th
em th
e fa
ct th
at
the
appl
ican
t was
not
regi
ster
ed a
s a m
inor
at t
he ti
me
of h
is ar
rest
For
the
sam
e re
ason
the
Cou
rt w
ill
exam
ine
the
appl
ican
trsquos c
ompl
aint
s abo
ut h
is co
nditi
ons o
f det
entio
n as
com
plai
nts r
aise
d by
an
adul
t pe
rson
atthe
timeofth
eeven
tsn
amelyup
to30 July200
9th
eda
tefrom
whichth
ena
tiona
lautho
rities
trea
ted
him
as a
min
orrsquo
Kala
chni
kov
v Ru
ssia
no
470
959915 July
2002
Efre
mid
ze v
Gre
ece
no
332
250821 June
20
11
Tabe
sh c
Gregrave
ce
no 825
607
26
Novem
ber2
009
Kudl
a v
Pola
nd
[GC]n
o 30
21096
26
Octob
er200
0
Peer
s v G
reec
e
no 285
249519 Ap
ril
2001
Riad
and
Idia
b v
Belg
ium
no
s 297
870
3 an
d 29
81003
24 Janu
ary
2008
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 101
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
AA v
Gre
ece
no
121
860822 July
2010
Anan
yev
and
Oth
ers
v Ru
ssia
nos
425
250
7 an
d 60
800
08
10 Ja
nuary20
12
AF c
Gregrave
ce
no 537
091113 June
20
13
Sias
ios e
t al
v Gr
eece
no
303
03074 Ju
ne
2009
Vafia
dis v
Gre
ece
no
249
81077 Ju
ly
2009
Shuv
aev
v Gr
eece
no
824
907
29
Octob
er200
9
Hors
hill
v Gr
eece
no
704
27111Aug
ust
2013
Lica
v G
reec
e
no 742
791017 July
2012
BM v
Gre
ece
no
536
0811
19 Decem
ber2
013
Bygy
lash
vili
v Gr
eece
no
581
6410
25 Sep
tembe
r201
2
102 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
RU v
Gre
ece
no
223
708
7 Ju
ne
2011
Rahi
mi v
Gre
ece
no
868
708
5 April
2011
Asla
nis v
Gre
ece
no
364
0110
17 Octob
er201
3
De lo
s San
tos a
nd
de la
Cru
z v G
reec
e
nos 2
134
12 a
nd
2161
1226 June
201
4
Ahm
ade
v Gr
eece
no
505
2009
25 Sep
tembe
r201
2
Barja
maj
v G
reec
e
no 366
57112 M
ay
2013
Khur
oshv
ili v
Gre
ece
no
581
6510
12 Decem
ber2
013
Vučković and
Others
v Se
rbia
[GC]
no
171
531125Match
2014
SD v
Gre
ece
no
535
410711 June
20
09
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 103
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
Abdi
Mah
amud
v M
alta
no 567
9613
030
520
16
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
proh
ibiti
on o
f tor
ture
- de
tent
ion
- deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent ndash
Art
icle
5 E
CHR
ndash re
view
of
law
fuln
ess o
f det
entio
n ndash
spee
dine
ss o
f rev
iew
ndash m
edic
al re
port
s
Para
89
rsquo89
In v
iew
of t
he a
pplic
antrsquos
vul
nera
bilit
y as
a re
sult
of h
er h
ealth
all
the
abov
e-m
entio
ned
circ
umst
ance
s n
amel
y th
e fa
ct th
at th
e ap
plic
ant h
ad n
o ac
cess
to o
utdo
or e
xerc
ise fo
r any
thin
g be
twee
n ei
ght a
nd tw
elve
wee
ks t
he p
oor e
nviro
nmen
t for
out
door
exe
rcise
in th
e re
mai
ning
per
iod
the
lack
of
spec
ific
mea
sure
s to
coun
ter a
ct th
e co
ld t
he la
ck o
f fem
ale
staf
f th
e lit
tle p
rivac
y of
fere
d in
the
cent
re
and
the
fact
thes
e co
nditi
ons p
ersis
ted
for o
ver s
ixte
en m
onth
s le
ad th
e Co
urt t
o co
nclu
de th
at th
e cu
mul
ativ
e ef
fect
of t
he c
ondi
tions
com
plai
ned
of d
imin
ished
the
appl
ican
trsquos h
uman
dig
nity
and
aro
used
in
her
feel
ings
of a
ngui
sh a
nd in
ferio
rity
capa
ble
of h
umili
atin
g an
d de
basin
g he
r and
pos
sibly
bre
akin
g he
r phy
sical
or m
oral
resis
tanc
e In
sum
the
Cou
rt c
onsid
ers t
hat t
he c
ondi
tions
of t
he a
pplic
antrsquos
de
tent
ion
in H
erm
es B
lock
am
ount
ed to
deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 3
of t
he
Conv
entio
nrsquo
Vala
šinas
v L
ithua
nia
no
445
5898
24 Octob
er200
1
Torr
eggi
ani a
nd O
ther
s v
Italy
nos
435
170
9
4688
209
554
000
9
5787
509
615
350
9
3531
510
and
37
81810
8 Ja
nuary
2013
Doug
oz v
Gre
ece
no
409
07986 M
arch
2001
Riad
and
Idia
b v
Belg
ium
no
s 297
870
3 an
d 29
81003
24 Janu
ary
2008
MSS
v B
elgi
um
and
Gree
ce [
GC]
no 306
9609
21 Ja
nuary20
11
Loul
ed M
asso
ud
v M
altan
o 24
34008
27
July201
0
Saad
i v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
[GC]n
o 13
22903
29
Janu
ary20
08
104 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Yara
shon
en v
Tur
key
no
727
101124 June
20
14
Tabe
sh c
Gregrave
ce
no 825
607
26
Novem
ber2
009
Step
hens
v M
alta
(n
o 2)
no 33
74006
21
April20
09
Siza
rev
v U
krai
ne
no 171
1604
17 Ja
nuary20
13
Aden
Ahm
ed v
Mal
ta
no 553
521223 July
2013
SD v
Gre
ece
no
535
410711 June
20
09
Suso
Mus
a v
Mal
ta
no 423
371223 July
2013
Abdi
Ahm
ed a
nd o
ther
s v
Mal
tan
o 43
98513
16
Sep
tembe
r201
4
Mik
alau
skas
v M
alta
no
445
810
23 July
2013
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 105
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Nes
hkov
and
O
ther
s v B
ulga
ria
nos 3
6925
10
21
487
12 7
2893
12
73
196
12 7
7718
12
and
9717
13
27
Janu
ary20
15
Nur
mag
omed
ov
v Ru
ssia
no 30
13802
7 June
200
7
Selc
uk a
nd A
kser
v
Turk
ey n
os 2
3184
94
and23
18594
24 Ap
ril
1998
Pret
ty v
Uni
ted
King
domn
o 23
460
29 April20
02
106 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R (G
C)
JK a
nd O
ther
s v S
wed
en
no 591
6612
230
820
16
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
risk
of to
rtur
e or
to in
hum
an o
r deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent ndash
risk
on
retu
rn to
Iraq
Para
72
lsquo72
The
Gov
ernm
ent f
urth
er co
nten
ded
that
ther
e w
as n
o re
ason
to b
elie
ve th
at th
e fir
st a
pplic
ant a
nd
his f
amily
wou
ld fi
nd th
emse
lves
in a
par
ticul
arly
vul
nera
ble
situa
tion
upon
retu
rnin
g to
Bag
hdad
The
Go
vern
men
t agr
eed
with
the
Cham
ber t
hat t
here
was
insu
fficie
nt e
vide
nce
to co
nclu
de th
at o
win
g to
thei
r pe
rson
al ci
rcum
stan
ces
the
appl
icant
s wou
ld fa
ce a
real
risk
of b
eing
subj
ecte
d to
trea
tmen
t con
trar
y to
Ar
ticle
3 o
f the
Con
vent
ion
if re
turn
ed to
Iraq
rsquo
Para
79
lsquo79
The
gen
eral
prin
ciple
s con
cern
ing
Artic
le 3
in e
xpul
sion
case
s hav
e be
en se
t out
in S
aadi
v It
aly
([G
C] n
o 3
7201
06sectsect12
4-13
3ECH
R20
08)a
ndm
ostrecen
tlyin
FG v
Sw
eden
([GC
] no
436
111
1
ECHR
201
6) T
he re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
s of t
he la
tter j
udgm
ent r
ead
as fo
llow
s
ldquo111
Th
e Co
urt r
eite
rate
s tha
t Con
trac
ting
Stat
es h
ave
the
right
as a
mat
ter o
f wel
l-est
ablis
hed
inte
rnat
iona
l law
and
subj
ect t
o th
eir t
reat
y ob
ligat
ions
inc
ludi
ng th
e Co
nven
tion
to co
ntro
l the
ent
ry
resid
ence
and
exp
ulsio
n of
alie
ns (s
ee f
or e
xam
ple
Hirs
i Jam
aa a
nd O
ther
s v I
taly
[GC]
no
277
650
9
sect11
3ECH
R20
12Uuml
ner v
the
Net
herla
nds [
GC]
no 4
6410
99sect54ECH
R20
06-XIIA
bdul
aziz
Cab
ales
and
Ba
lkand
ali v
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
28 May198
5sect67SeriesA
no94and
Bou
jlifa
v F
ranc
e21 Octob
er
1997
sect42R
epor
ts o
f Jud
gmen
ts a
nd D
ecisi
ons 1
997-
VI)
How
ever
the
exp
ulsio
n of
an
alie
n by
a C
ontr
actin
g St
ate
may
giv
e ris
e to
an
issue
und
er A
rticl
e 3
and
hen
ce e
ngag
e th
e re
spon
sibili
ty o
f tha
t Sta
te u
nder
th
e Co
nven
tion
whe
re su
bsta
ntia
l gro
unds
hav
e be
en sh
own
for b
elie
ving
that
the
pers
on in
que
stio
n if
de
port
ed w
ould
face
a re
al ri
sk o
f bei
ng su
bjec
ted
to tr
eatm
ent c
ontr
ary
to A
rticl
e 3
in th
e de
stin
atio
n co
untr
y In
thes
e cir
cum
stan
ces
Artic
le 3
impl
ies a
n ob
ligat
ion
not t
o de
port
the
pers
on in
que
stio
n to
that
co
untr
y (s
ee a
mon
g ot
her a
utho
ritie
s Sa
adi v
Ita
ly [G
C] n
o 3
7201
06sectsect12
4-12
5ECH
R20
08)
112
The
ass
essm
ent o
f whe
ther
ther
e ar
e su
bsta
ntia
l gro
unds
for b
elie
ving
that
the
appl
icant
face
s suc
h a
real
risk
inev
itabl
y re
quire
s the
Cou
rt to
exa
min
e th
e co
nditi
ons i
n th
e de
stin
atio
n co
untr
y in
the
light
of
the
stan
dard
s of A
rticl
e 3
of th
e Co
nven
tion
(see
Mam
atku
lov
and
Aska
rov
v Tu
rkey
[GC]
nos
468
279
9 an
d 46
951
99sect67ECH
R20
05-I)The
sestan
dardse
ntailthatthe
ill-treatmen
tthe
app
licanta
llegesh
ewillface
if re
turn
ed m
ust a
ttain
a m
inim
um le
vel o
f sev
erity
if it
is to
fall
with
in th
e sc
ope
of A
rticl
e 3
The
ass
essm
ent
of th
is le
vel i
s rel
ativ
e d
epen
ding
on
all t
he ci
rcum
stan
ces o
f the
case
(see
Hila
l v t
he U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 4
5276
99sect60ECH
R20
01-II)rsquo
Baha
ddar
v th
e Ne
ther
land
s no
1451996764965
19 Fe
bruary1998
Chah
al v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(GC
) no
2241493
15 Novem
ber1
995
Collin
s and
Aka
siebi
e v
Swed
en (d
ec)
no 23944058 M
arch
2007
DNW
v Sw
eden
no
2994610
6 De
cembe
r2012
FG v
Swed
en [G
C]
no 436111123 March
2016
FH v
Swed
en
no 326210620 Janu
ary
2009
HLR
v Fr
ance
no
245739429 Ap
ril
1997
Hila
l v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 45276996 M
arch
2001
Hirs
i Jam
aa a
nd
Oth
ers v
Ital
y [G
C]
no 2776509
23 Fe
bruary2012
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 107
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
83
lsquo83
In
the
Cour
trsquos c
ase-
law
the
prin
cipl
e of
ex
nunc
eva
luat
ion
of th
e ci
rcum
stan
ces h
as b
een
esta
blish
ed
in a
num
ber o
f cas
es T
his p
rinci
ple
has m
ost r
ecen
tly b
een
set o
ut in
FG
v S
wed
en (c
ited
abov
e)
ldquo115
If
the
appl
ican
t has
not
alre
ady
been
dep
orte
d th
e m
ater
ial p
oint
in ti
me
for t
he a
sses
smen
t m
ust b
e th
at o
f the
Cou
rtrsquos
cons
ider
atio
n of
the
case
(see
Cha
halcitedab
ovesect86)A
fullan
dex
nu
nc e
valu
atio
n is
requ
ired
whe
re it
is n
eces
sary
to ta
ke in
to a
ccou
nt in
form
atio
n th
at h
as c
ome
to
light
afte
r the
fina
l dec
ision
by
the
dom
estic
aut
horit
ies w
as ta
ken
(see
for
exa
mpl
e M
aslo
v v
Aus
tria
[G
C] n
o 1
638
03sectsect87
-95ECH
R20
08and
Suf
i and
Elm
i v t
he U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
mcite
dab
ovesect215
)Th
is sit
uatio
n ty
pica
lly a
rises
whe
n a
s in
the
pres
ent c
ase
dep
orta
tion
is de
laye
d as
a re
sult
of th
e in
dica
tion
by th
e Co
urt o
f an
inte
rim m
easu
re u
nder
Rul
e 39
of t
he R
ules
of C
ourt
Sin
ce th
e na
ture
of
the
Cont
ract
ing
Stat
esrsquo r
espo
nsib
ility
und
er A
rtic
le 3
in c
ases
of t
his k
ind
lies i
n th
e ac
t of e
xpos
ing
an
indi
vidu
al to
the
risk
of il
l tre
atm
ent
the
exist
ence
of t
he ri
sk m
ust b
e as
sess
ed p
rimar
ily w
ith re
fere
nce
to th
ose
fact
s whi
ch w
ere
know
n or
oug
ht to
hav
e be
en k
now
n by
the
Cont
ract
ing
Stat
e at
the
time
of th
e ex
pulsi
on T
he a
sses
smen
t mus
t foc
us o
n th
e fo
rese
eabl
e co
nseq
uenc
es o
f the
app
lican
trsquos re
mov
al to
the
coun
try
of d
estin
atio
n in
the
light
of t
he g
ener
al si
tuat
ion
ther
e an
d of
his
or h
er p
erso
nal c
ircum
stan
ces
(see
for
exa
mpl
e S
alah
She
ekh
v th
e N
ethe
rland
s n
o 1
948
04sect136
11 Janu
ary20
07and
Vilv
araj
ah
and
Oth
ers v
the
Uni
ted
King
domcite
dab
ovesectsect10
7an
d10
8)rdquorsquo
Para
93
lsquo93
Ow
ing
to th
e sp
ecia
l situ
atio
n in
whi
ch a
sylu
m-s
eeke
rs o
ften
find
them
selv
es i
t is f
requ
ently
ne
cess
ary
to g
ive
them
the
bene
fit o
f the
dou
bt w
hen
asse
ssin
g th
e cr
edib
ility
of t
heir
stat
emen
ts
and
the
docu
men
ts su
bmitt
ed in
supp
ort t
here
of Y
et w
hen
info
rmat
ion
is pr
esen
ted
whi
ch g
ives
st
rong
reas
ons t
o qu
estio
n th
e ve
raci
ty o
f an
asyl
um-s
eeke
rrsquos su
bmiss
ions
the
indi
vidu
al m
ust p
rovi
de
a sa
tisfa
ctor
y ex
plan
atio
n fo
r the
alle
ged
inac
cura
cies
in th
ose
subm
issio
ns (s
ee F
G v
Sw
eden
cite
d ab
ovesect113
Col
lins a
nd A
kazie
bie
v S
wed
en (d
ec)
no
239
440
58 M
arch200
7and
SH
H v
the
U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m n
o 6
0367
10sect7129 Janu
ary20
13)Even
ifth
eap
plican
trsquosaccou
ntofsom
ede
tails
may
app
ear s
omew
hat i
mpl
ausib
le t
he C
ourt
has
con
sider
ed th
at th
is do
es n
ot n
eces
saril
y de
trac
t fro
m
the
over
all g
ener
al c
redi
bilit
y of
the
appl
ican
trsquos c
laim
(see
Sai
dcite
dab
ovesect53and
mut
atis
mut
andi
s
N v
Fin
land
no
388
850
2sectsect15
4-15
526 July200
5)rsquo
Labi
ta c
Italy
[GC]
no
26772956 April
2000
MA
v Cy
prus
no
418721023 July
2013
MSS
v B
elgi
um
and
Gree
ce [
GC]
no 306960921 Janu
ary
2011
Muumls
lim v
Turk
ey
no 535669926 Ap
ril
2005
N v
Finl
and
no
388850226 July
2005
NA v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no
259040717 July
2008
Niza
mov
and
Oth
ers
v Ru
ssia
nos
226
361
3
2403
413
243
341
3
24328137 M
ay2014
RC v
Swed
en
no 41827079 M
arch
2010
RJ v
Fran
ce
no 1046611
19 Sep
tembe
r2013
108 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
SH v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no
199560615 June
20
10
SHH
v Un
ited
King
dom
no
603671029 Janu
ary
2013
Saad
i v It
aly
[GC]
no
3720106
28 Fe
bruary2008
Said
v th
e Ne
ther
land
s no
2345025 Ju
ly2005
Sala
h Sh
eekh
v
the
Net
herla
nds
no
19480411 Janu
ary
2007
Sufi
and
Elm
i v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m n
os 8
319
07
and114490728 June
20
11
TI v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(dec)no
4384498
7 March2000
Venk
adaj
alas
arm
a v
the
Neth
erla
nds
no 5851000
17 Fe
bruary2004
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 109
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
[GC
VM a
nd O
ther
s v
Belg
ium
no 601
2511
171
120
16
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R - i
nhum
an o
r deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent ndash
subj
ecte
d to
livi
ng c
ondi
tions
that
resu
lted
in
daug
hter
rsquos de
ath
Para
41
lsquo41
Acc
ordi
ngly
the
case
shou
ld b
e st
ruck
out
of t
he li
strsquo
Diss
entin
g op
inio
n of
Judg
e Ra
nzon
i jo
ined
by
judg
es L
oacutepez
Gue
rra
Sic
ilian
os a
nd L
emm
ens
Par
a
5 lsquoF
irstly
the
Gra
nd C
ham
ber s
houl
d ha
ve ta
ken
adva
ntag
e of
the
oppo
rtun
ity p
rovi
ded
by th
e pr
esen
t ca
se to
def
ine
or a
djus
t the
con
cept
of ldquo
vuln
erab
ility
rdquo In
its c
ase-
law
the
Cour
t has
had
rega
rd to
th
e vu
lner
abili
ty o
f the
app
lican
ts b
oth
in a
sses
sing
whe
ther
the
thre
shol
d of
seve
rity
just
ifyin
g th
e ap
plic
atio
n of
Art
icle
3 h
ad b
een
atta
ined
a g
reat
er d
egre
e of
vul
nera
bilit
y ju
stify
ing
a lo
wer
thre
shol
d of
tole
ranc
e a
nd in
det
erm
inin
g th
e sc
ope
of th
e po
sitiv
e ob
ligat
ions
on
the
Stat
e e
xtre
me
vuln
erab
ility
re
quiri
ng a
gre
ater
dut
y of
pro
tect
ion
(see
MS
S v
Bel
gium
and
Gre
ece
[GC]
no
306
960
9sect251
ECH
R20
11 a
nd Ta
rakh
el v
Sw
itzer
land
[GC]
no
292
171
2sect119
ECH
R20
14(e
xtracts))rsquo
Ali v
Switz
erla
nd
no 6919978531060
5 Au
gust
199
8
Dial
lo v
Cze
ch R
epub
lic
no 204930723 June
20
11
Ibra
him
Hay
d v
the
Neth
erla
nds (
dec)
no
3088010
29 Novem
ber2
011
K an
d T
v Fi
nlan
d [G
C]
no 257029412 July
2001
Kadz
oev v
Bul
garia
(dec)no
5643707
1 Octob
er2013
MH
and
Oth
ers v
Cyp
rus
(dec)no
4174410
14 Janu
ary2014
MIs
v C
ypru
s (de
c)
no 4180510
10 Fe
bruary2015
Ram
zy v
the
Neth
erla
nds (
strik
ing
out)no 2542405
20 Ju
ly2010
Shar
ifi a
nd O
ther
s v
Italy
and
Gre
ece
no
1664309
21 Octob
er2014
110 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
Elm
i and
Abu
bake
r v
Mal
ta
nos 2
5794
13
and
2815
113
221
120
16
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
Proh
ibiti
on o
f tor
ture
- de
grad
ing
trea
tmen
t ndash d
eten
tion
ndash as
ylum
seek
ing
child
ren
ndash be
st
inte
rest
s of t
he ch
ild -
Artic
le 5
ECH
R ndash
revi
ew o
f law
fuln
ess o
f det
entio
n ndash
arbi
trar
y de
tent
ion
due
to se
vere
de
lays
Para
s 1
11-1
15
lsquo111
The
se co
ncer
ns a
ssum
e a
new
dim
ensio
n in
vie
w o
f the
fact
that
the
appl
icant
s wer
e m
inor
s at t
he
time
of th
eir d
eten
tion
(as c
onfir
med
by
the
dom
estic
pro
cedu
res)
Whi
le it
is tr
ue th
at th
e ap
plica
nts w
ere
not y
oung
child
ren
they
still
fell
with
in th
e in
tern
atio
nal d
efin
ition
of m
inor
s in
resp
ect o
f whi
ch d
eten
tion
shou
ld b
e a
last
reso
rt a
nd w
hich
shou
ld b
e lim
ited
to th
e sh
orte
st ti
me
poss
ible
As m
entio
ned
abov
e
unde
r the
Cou
rtrsquos
case
-law
rece
ptio
n co
nditi
ons f
or ch
ildre
n se
ekin
g as
ylum
mus
t be
adap
ted
to th
eir a
ge
How
ever
no
mea
sure
s wer
e ta
ken
to e
nsur
e th
at th
e ap
plica
nts a
s min
ors r
ecei
ved
prop
er co
unse
lling
an
d ed
ucat
iona
l ass
istan
ce fr
om q
ualif
ied
pers
onne
l spe
cially
man
date
d fo
r tha
t pur
pose
(see
Mub
ilanz
ila
May
eka
and
Kani
ki M
itung
a citedab
ovesect50)N
orwereanyen
tertainm
entfacilitie
sprovide
dforp
ersons
of th
eir a
ge F
urth
erm
ore
the
Cour
t can
not i
gnor
e th
e ap
plica
ntsrsquo
subm
issio
ns to
the
effe
ct th
at th
ere
was
a te
nse
and
viol
ent a
tmos
pher
e a
s also
doc
umen
ted
by re
port
s (se
e pa
ragr
aph
86 a
bove
) Th
e la
ck o
f an
y su
ppor
t mec
hani
sm fo
r the
app
lican
ts a
s min
ors
as w
ell a
s the
lack
of i
nfor
mat
ion
conc
erni
ng th
eir
situa
tion
mus
t hav
e ex
acer
bate
d th
eir f
ears
lsquo112
The
Cou
rt re
itera
tes t
hat a
Sta
tersquos
oblig
atio
ns co
ncer
ning
the
prot
ectio
n of
mig
rant
min
ors m
ay b
e di
ffere
nt d
epen
ding
on
whe
ther
they
are
acc
ompa
nied
or n
ot (s
ee R
ahim
i v G
reec
e n
o 8
687
08sect63
5 Ap
ril201
1)H
oweverthe
Cou
rthasfo
undviolationsinbotham
bitsItfou
ndaviolatio
nofArticle3in
Popo
v(cite
dab
ovesect103
)con
cerningaccompa
nied
minorsinview
ofthe
childrenrsquosy
oungage(fivemon
ths
and
thre
e ye
ars)
the
leng
th o
f the
ir de
tent
ion
(ove
r a p
erio
d of
fifte
en d
ays)
and
the
cond
ition
s of t
heir
conf
inem
ent i
n a
dete
ntio
n ce
ntre
It a
lso fo
und
a vi
olat
ion
of A
rticl
e 3
in th
e M
uskh
adzh
iyev
a an
d O
ther
s (cite
dab
ovesect63)co
ncerningfo
uryou
ngch
ildrenwho
werehe
ldaccom
panied
bytheirm
othe
rforo
ne
mon
th p
endi
ng th
eir r
emov
al ndash
the
Cour
t hav
ing
take
n in
to co
nsid
erat
ion
thei
r you
ng a
ge (s
even
mon
ths
to se
ven
year
s) t
he d
urat
ion
of th
e de
tent
ion
and
thei
r hea
lth st
atus
(see
also
Kan
agar
atna
m v
Bel
gium
no
152
970
9sect6913 De
cembe
r201
1)The
Cou
rthasalso
previou
slyfo
und
in R
ahim
i (cit
ed a
bove
sectsect85-86
)inrespecto
fanun
accompa
nied
minor(a
gedfifteen
)insuchfacilitiesthatthe
cond
ition
sof
his d
eten
tion
wer
e so
poo
r tha
t the
y un
derm
ined
the
very
ess
ence
of h
uman
dig
nity
and
that
they
coul
d be
rega
rded
in th
emse
lves
with
out t
akin
g in
to co
nsid
erat
ion
the
leng
th o
f the
det
entio
n (a
few
day
s) a
s de
grad
ing
trea
tmen
t in
brea
ch o
f Art
icle
3 of
the
Conv
entio
n (s
ee a
lso M
ubila
nzila
May
eka
and
Kani
ki
Mitu
ngacitedab
ovesectsect50
-59inco
nnectio
nwith
afive-year-o
lduna
ccom
panied
minor)
Aden
Ahm
ed v
Mal
ta
no 553
521223 July
2013
Mah
amed
Jam
a v
Mal
tan
o 10
29013
26
Novem
ber2
015
Mox
amed
Ism
aaci
il an
d Ab
dira
hman
War
sam
e v
Mal
ta n
os 5
2160
13
and
5216
513
12
Janu
ary20
16
Mub
ilanz
ila
May
eka
and
Kani
ki
Mitu
nga
v Be
lgiu
m
no 1
3178
03
12
Octob
er200
6
Siza
rev
v U
krai
ne
no 171
1604
17 Ja
nuary20
13
Selc
uk a
nd A
kser
v
Turk
ey n
os 2
3184
94
and23
18594
24 Ap
ril
1998
Pret
ty v
Uni
ted
King
domn
o 23
4602
29 April20
02
Doug
oz v
Gre
ece
no
409
07986 M
arch
2001
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 111
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo113
The
Cou
rt o
bser
ves t
hat i
n th
e ap
plic
ants
rsquo cas
e th
e af
orem
entio
ned
cond
ition
s per
siste
d fo
r a p
erio
d of
aro
und
eigh
t mon
ths
dur
ing
whi
ch n
o sp
ecifi
c ar
rang
emen
ts w
ere
mad
e fo
r the
app
lican
ts a
s mig
rant
s aw
aitin
g th
e ou
tcom
e of
thei
r age
-ass
essm
ent p
roce
dure
(who
se st
atus
as m
inor
s was
late
r con
firm
ed)
The
Cour
t rei
tera
tes t
hat t
he a
pplic
ants
as a
sylu
m-s
eeke
rs w
ere
part
icul
arly
vul
nera
ble
beca
use
of
ever
ythi
ng th
ey h
ad b
een
thro
ugh
durin
g th
eir m
igra
tion
and
the
trau
mat
ic e
xper
ienc
es th
ey w
ere
likel
y to
hav
e en
dure
d pr
evio
usly
(see
MS
Scitedab
ovesect232
)Moreo
verinth
epresen
tcasetheap
plican
ts
who
wer
e six
teen
and
seve
ntee
n ye
ars o
f age
resp
ectiv
ely
wer
e ev
en m
ore
vuln
erab
le th
an a
ny o
ther
ad
ult a
sylu
m se
eker
det
aine
d at
the
time
beca
use
of th
eir a
ge (s
ee a
con
trar
io M
aham
ed Ja
ma
cite
d ab
ovesect100
)
lsquo114
It f
ollo
ws
in th
e pr
esen
t cas
e th
at si
nce
the
appl
ican
ts w
ere
min
ors w
ho w
ere
deta
ined
for a
per
iod
of a
roun
d ei
ght m
onth
s th
e cu
mul
ativ
e ef
fect
of t
he c
ondi
tions
com
plai
ned
of a
mou
nted
to d
egra
ding
tr
eatm
ent w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n
lsquo115
The
re h
as a
ccor
ding
ly b
een
a vi
olat
ion
of A
rtic
le 3
of t
he C
onve
ntio
nrsquo
SD v
Gre
ece
no
535410711 June
20
09
AA v
Gre
ece
no
121860822 July
2010
Riad
and
Idia
b v B
elgi
um n
os 2
9787
03
and
2981
003
24 Janu
ary2008
Alve
r v E
ston
ia
no 6481201
8 No
vembe
r2005
Kara
levi
cius v
Lith
uani
a
no 53254997 April
2005
Yara
shon
en v
Turk
ey n
o
727101124 June
2014
Anan
yev a
nd O
ther
s v
Russ
ia n
os 4
2525
07
and
6080
008
10 Janu
ary2012
MSS
v B
elgi
um
and
Gree
ce [
GC]
no 306960921 Janu
ary
2011
Mub
ilanz
ila M
ayek
a an
d Ka
niki
Mitu
nga
v Be
lgiu
m no
1317
803
12 Octob
er2006
112 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Popo
v v Fr
ance
no
s 394
720
7 an
d 394740719 Janu
ary
2012
Tara
khel
v Sw
itzer
land
[G
C] no
2921
712
4 No
vembe
r2014
Suso
Mus
a v
Mal
ta
no 423371223 July
2013
Rahi
mi v
Gre
ece
no
8687085 April
2011
Kana
gara
tnam
v
Belg
ium
no 1529709
13 Decem
ber2
011
Step
hens
v M
alta
(no
1)
no 119560721 Ap
ril
2009
Loul
ed M
asso
ud
v M
altano 2434008
27 Ju
ly2010
Saad
i v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
[GC]no 1322903
29 Janu
ary2008
Blok
hin
v Ru
ssia
[GC]
no
471520623 March
2016
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 113
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
[GC]
Papo
shvi
li v
Belg
ium
no 417
3810
131
220
16
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R - r
isk o
f tor
ture
or t
o in
hum
an o
r deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent -
Art
icle
8 ndash
righ
t to
resp
ect f
or
fam
ily li
fe ndash
rem
oval
to G
eorg
ia ndash
hea
lth o
f app
lican
t
Para
178
lsquo178
In
the
case
of N
v t
he U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m w
hich
con
cern
ed th
e re
mov
al o
f a U
gand
an n
atio
nal w
ho
was
suffe
ring
from
Aid
s to
her c
ount
ry o
f orig
in t
he C
ourt
in
exam
inin
g w
heth
er th
e ci
rcum
stan
ces o
f th
e ca
se a
ttai
ned
the
leve
l of s
ever
ity re
quire
d by
Art
icle
3 o
f the
Con
vent
ion
obs
erve
d th
at n
eith
er th
e de
cisio
n to
rem
ove
an a
lien
who
was
suffe
ring
from
a se
rious
illn
ess t
o a
coun
try
whe
re th
e fa
cilit
ies f
or
the
trea
tmen
t of t
hat i
llnes
s wer
e in
ferio
r to
thos
e av
aila
ble
in th
e Co
ntra
ctin
g St
ate
nor
the
fact
that
the
indi
vidu
alrsquos
circ
umst
ance
s in
clud
ing
his o
r her
life
exp
ecta
ncy
wou
ld b
e sig
nific
antly
redu
ced
con
stitu
ted
in th
emse
lves
ldquoexc
eptio
nalrdquo
circ
umst
ance
s suf
ficie
nt to
giv
e ris
e to
a b
reac
h of
Art
icle
3 (s
ee N
v t
he
Uni
ted
King
dom
) In
the
Cour
trsquos v
iew
it w
as im
port
ant t
o av
oid
upse
ttin
g th
e fa
ir ba
lanc
e in
here
nt in
th
e w
hole
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n be
twee
n th
e de
man
ds o
f the
gen
eral
inte
rest
of t
he c
omm
unity
and
the
requ
irem
ents
of t
he p
rote
ctio
n of
the
indi
vidu
alrsquos
fund
amen
tal r
ight
s A
find
ing
to th
e co
ntra
ry w
ould
pl
ace
too
grea
t a b
urde
n on
Sta
tes b
y ob
ligin
g th
em to
alle
viat
e th
e di
spar
ities
bet
wee
n th
eir h
ealth
-ca
re sy
stem
and
the
leve
l of t
reat
men
t ava
ilabl
e in
the
third
cou
ntry
con
cern
ed th
roug
h th
e pr
ovisi
on o
f fr
ee a
nd u
nlim
ited
heal
th c
are
to a
ll al
iens
with
out a
righ
t to
stay
with
in th
eir j
urisd
ictio
n R
athe
r re
gard
sh
ould
be
had
to th
e fa
ct th
at th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
con
ditio
n w
as n
ot c
ritic
al a
nd w
as st
able
as a
resu
lt of
the
antir
etro
vira
l tre
atm
ent s
he h
ad re
ceiv
ed in
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
tha
t she
was
fit t
o tr
avel
and
that
her
co
nditi
on w
as n
ot e
xpec
ted
to d
eter
iora
te a
s lon
g as
she
cont
inue
d to
take
the
trea
tmen
t she
nee
ded
Th
e Co
urt a
lso d
eem
ed it
nec
essa
ry to
take
acc
ount
of t
he fa
ct th
at th
e ra
pidi
ty o
f the
det
erio
ratio
n w
hich
th
e ap
plic
ant w
ould
suffe
r in
the
rece
ivin
g co
untr
y an
d th
e ex
tent
to w
hich
she
wou
ld b
e ab
le to
obt
ain
acce
ss to
med
ical
trea
tmen
t su
ppor
t and
car
e th
ere
incl
udin
g he
lp fr
om re
lativ
es n
eces
saril
y in
volv
ed
a ce
rtai
n de
gree
of s
pecu
latio
n p
artic
ular
ly in
vie
w o
f the
con
stan
tly e
volv
ing
situa
tion
with
rega
rd to
the
treatm
ento
fAidsw
orldwide(ib
idsect50
)Th
eCo
urtc
onclud
edth
atth
eim
plem
entatio
nofth
ede
cisio
nto
rem
ove
the
appl
ican
t wou
ld n
ot g
ive
rise
to a
vio
latio
n of
Art
icle
3 o
f the
Con
vent
ion
Nev
erth
eles
s it
sp
ecifi
ed th
at i
n ad
ditio
n to
situ
atio
ns o
f the
kin
d ad
dres
sed
in D
v t
he U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m in
whi
ch d
eath
w
as im
min
ent
ther
e m
ight
be
othe
r ver
y ex
cept
iona
l cas
es w
here
the
hum
anita
rian
cons
ider
atio
ns
wei
ghin
g ag
ains
t rem
oval
wer
e eq
ually
com
pelli
ng (s
ee D
v t
he U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m)
An e
xam
inat
ion
of th
e ca
se-la
w su
bseq
uent
to N
v t
he U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m h
as n
ot re
veal
ed a
ny su
ch e
xam
ples
rsquo
AS v
Sw
itzer
land
no
393
501330 June
20
15
Aire
y v
Irela
nd
no 628
973
9 Octob
er
1979
Asw
at v
Uni
ted
King
domn
o 17
29912
16
April20
13
Bouy
id v
Bel
gium
[GC]n
o 23
38009
28
Sep
tembe
r201
5
D v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no
302
40962 M
ay
1997
EO v
Ital
y (d
ec)
no 347
241010 May
2012
El-M
asri
v th
e fo
rmer
Yu
gosla
v Re
publ
ic
of M
aced
onia
[GC]n
o 39
63009
13
Decem
ber2
012
FG v
Sw
eden
[GC]
no
436
111123 March
2016
114 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
s 1
83-1
93
lsquo183
The
Cou
rt c
onsid
ers t
hat t
he ldquoo
ther
ver
y ex
cept
iona
l cas
esrdquo
with
in th
e m
eani
ng o
f the
judg
men
t in
N v
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
whi
ch m
ay ra
ise a
n iss
ue u
nder
Art
icle
3 sh
ould
be
unde
rsto
od to
refe
r to
situa
tions
invo
lvin
g th
e re
mov
al o
f a se
rious
ly il
l per
son
in w
hich
subs
tant
ial g
roun
ds h
ave
been
show
n fo
r bel
ievi
ng th
at h
e or
she
alth
ough
not
at i
mm
inen
t risk
of d
ying
wou
ld fa
ce a
real
risk
on
acco
unt o
f th
e ab
senc
e of
app
ropr
iate
trea
tmen
t in
the
rece
ivin
g co
untr
y or
the
lack
of a
cces
s to
such
trea
tmen
t of
bei
ng e
xpos
ed to
a se
rious
rap
id a
nd ir
reve
rsib
le d
eclin
e in
his
or h
er st
ate
of h
ealth
resu
lting
in
inte
nse
suffe
ring
or to
a si
gnifi
cant
redu
ctio
n in
life
exp
ecta
ncy
The
Cou
rt p
oint
s out
that
thes
e sit
uatio
ns
corr
espo
nd to
a h
igh
thre
shol
d fo
r the
app
licat
ion
of A
rtic
le 3
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n in
cas
es c
once
rnin
g th
e re
mov
al o
f alie
ns su
fferin
g fr
om se
rious
illn
ess
lsquo184
As
to w
heth
er th
e ab
ove
cond
ition
s are
satis
fied
in a
giv
en si
tuat
ion
the
Cour
t obs
erve
s tha
t in
case
s inv
olvi
ng th
e ex
pulsi
on o
f alie
ns t
he C
ourt
doe
s not
itse
lf ex
amin
e th
e ap
plic
atio
ns fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pr
otec
tion
or v
erify
how
Sta
tes c
ontr
ol th
e en
try
resid
ence
and
exp
ulsio
n of
alie
ns B
y vi
rtue
of A
rtic
le 1
of
the
Conv
entio
n th
e pr
imar
y re
spon
sibili
ty fo
r im
plem
entin
g an
d en
forc
ing
the
guar
ante
ed ri
ghts
and
fr
eedo
ms i
s lai
d on
the
natio
nal a
utho
ritie
s w
ho a
re th
us re
quire
d to
exa
min
e th
e ap
plic
ants
rsquo fea
rs a
nd
to a
sses
s the
risk
s the
y w
ould
face
if re
mov
ed to
the
rece
ivin
g co
untr
y fr
om th
e st
andp
oint
of A
rtic
le 3
Th
e m
achi
nery
of c
ompl
aint
to th
e Co
urt i
s sub
sidia
ry to
nat
iona
l sys
tem
s saf
egua
rdin
g hu
man
righ
ts T
his
subsidiarycha
racterisarticulated
inArticle13an
dArtic
le35sect1ofth
eCo
nven
tion(see
MS
S v
Bel
gium
an
d Gr
eece
cite
dab
ovesectsect28
6-87
and
FG
v S
wed
en)
lsquo185
Ac
cord
ingl
y in
cas
es o
f thi
s kin
d th
e au
thor
ities
rsquo obl
igat
ion
unde
r Art
icle
3 to
pro
tect
the
inte
grity
of
the
pers
ons c
once
rned
is fu
lfille
d pr
imar
ily th
roug
h ap
prop
riate
pro
cedu
res a
llow
ing
such
exa
min
atio
n to
be
carr
ied
out (
see
mut
atis
mut
andi
s E
l-Mas
ri v
the
form
er Y
ugos
lav
Repu
blic
of M
aced
onia
[GC]
no
396
300
9sect182
ECH
R20
12 T
arak
hel
and
FG v
Sw
eden
)
lsquo186
In
the
cont
ext o
f the
se p
roce
dure
s it
is fo
r the
app
lican
ts to
add
uce
evid
ence
cap
able
of
dem
onst
ratin
g th
at th
ere
are
subs
tant
ial g
roun
ds fo
r bel
ievi
ng th
at i
f the
mea
sure
com
plai
ned
of w
ere
to b
e im
plem
ente
d th
ey w
ould
be
expo
sed
to a
real
risk
of b
eing
subj
ecte
d to
trea
tmen
t con
trar
y to
Art
icle
3 (s
ee S
aadi
and
FG
v S
wed
en)
In th
is co
nnec
tion
it sh
ould
be
obse
rved
that
a c
erta
in
degr
ee o
f spe
cula
tion
is in
here
nt in
the
prev
entiv
e pu
rpos
e of
Art
icle
3 a
nd th
at it
is n
ot a
mat
ter o
f re
quiri
ng th
e pe
rson
s con
cern
ed to
pro
vide
cle
ar p
roof
of t
heir
clai
m th
at th
ey w
ould
be
expo
sed
to
pros
crib
ed tr
eatm
ent (
see
in p
artic
ular
Tra
belsi
v B
elgi
um n
o 1
401
0sect130
ECH
R20
14(e
xtracts))
Hirs
i Jam
aa a
nd
Oth
ers v
Ital
y [G
C]
no 277
6509
23 Feb
ruary20
12
Kara
goz v
Fra
nce
(dec)no
475
3199
15 Novem
ber2
011
Karn
er v
Aus
tria
no
400
169824 July
2003
Khac
hatr
yan
v Be
lgiu
m
(dec)no
725
9710
7 Ap
ril201
5
Koch
ieva
and
Oth
ers
v Sw
eden
(dec
) no
752
031230 Ap
ril
2013
MSS
v B
elgi
um
and
Gree
ce [
GC]
no 306
9609
21 Ja
nuary20
11
Mal
hous
v C
zech
Re
publ
ic (d
ec) [
GC]
no 330
719612 July
2001
Mam
atku
lov
and
Aska
rov
v Tu
rkey
[GC]
no
s 468
279
9 an
d 46
95199
4 Feb
ruary
2005
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 115
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo187
W
here
such
evi
denc
e is
addu
ced
it is
for t
he a
utho
ritie
s of t
he re
turn
ing
Stat
e in
the
cont
ext o
f do
mes
tic p
roce
dure
s to
disp
el a
ny d
oubt
s rai
sed
by it
(see
Saa
dicite
dab
ovesect129
and
FG
v S
wed
en
citedab
ovesect120
)Th
eriskallegedmustb
esubjectedtoclosesc
rutin
y(see
Saa
di cite
dab
ovesect128
Su
fi an
d El
mi v
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
nos
831
907
and
114
490
7sect214
28 June
201
1H
irsi J
amaa
and
O
ther
s a
nd Ta
rakh
el)
in th
e co
urse
of w
hich
the
auth
oriti
es in
the
retu
rnin
g St
ate
mus
t con
sider
the
fore
seea
ble
cons
eque
nces
of r
emov
al fo
r the
indi
vidu
al c
once
rned
in th
e re
ceiv
ing
Stat
e in
the
light
of
the
gene
ral s
ituat
ion
ther
e an
d th
e in
divi
dual
rsquos pe
rson
al c
ircum
stan
ces (
see
Vilv
araj
ah a
nd O
ther
s
El-M
asri
and
Tara
khel
) Th
e as
sess
men
t of t
he ri
sk a
s def
ined
abo
ve (s
ee p
arag
raph
s 183
-84)
mus
t th
eref
ore
take
into
con
sider
atio
n ge
nera
l sou
rces
such
as r
epor
ts o
f the
Wor
ld H
ealth
Org
anisa
tion
or o
f re
puta
ble
non-
gove
rnm
enta
l org
anisa
tions
and
the
med
ical
cer
tific
ates
con
cern
ing
the
pers
on in
que
stio
n
lsquo188
As
the
Cour
t has
obs
erve
d ab
ove
wha
t is i
n iss
ue h
ere
is th
e ne
gativ
e ob
ligat
ion
not t
o ex
pose
pe
rson
s to
a ris
k of
ill-t
reat
men
t pro
scrib
ed b
y Ar
ticle
3 I
t fol
low
s tha
t the
impa
ct o
f rem
oval
on
the
pers
on c
once
rned
mus
t be
asse
ssed
by
com
parin
g hi
s or h
er st
ate
of h
ealth
prio
r to
rem
oval
and
how
it
wou
ld e
volv
e af
ter t
rans
fer t
o th
e re
ceiv
ing
Stat
e
lsquo189
As
rega
rds t
he fa
ctor
s to
be ta
ken
into
con
sider
atio
n th
e au
thor
ities
in th
e re
turn
ing
Stat
e m
ust
verif
y on
a c
ase-
by-c
ase
basis
whe
ther
the
care
gen
eral
ly a
vaila
ble
in th
e re
ceiv
ing
Stat
e is
suffi
cien
t an
d ap
prop
riate
in p
ract
ice
for t
he tr
eatm
ent o
f the
app
lican
trsquos il
lnes
s so
as to
pre
vent
him
or h
er b
eing
ex
pose
d to
trea
tmen
t con
trar
y to
Art
icle
3 T
he b
ench
mar
k is
not t
he le
vel o
f car
e ex
istin
g in
the
retu
rnin
g St
ate
it is
not
a q
uest
ion
of a
scer
tain
ing
whe
ther
the
care
in th
e re
ceiv
ing
Stat
e w
ould
be
equi
vale
nt o
r in
ferio
r to
that
pro
vide
d by
the
heal
th-c
are
syst
em in
the
retu
rnin
g St
ate
Nor
is it
pos
sible
to d
eriv
e fr
om
Artic
le 3
a ri
ght t
o re
ceiv
e sp
ecifi
c tr
eatm
ent i
n th
e re
ceiv
ing
Stat
e w
hich
is n
ot a
vaila
ble
to th
e re
st o
f the
po
pula
tion
lsquo190
Th
e au
thor
ities
mus
t also
con
sider
the
exte
nt to
whi
ch th
e in
divi
dual
in q
uest
ion
will
act
ually
hav
e ac
cess
to th
is ca
re a
nd th
ese
faci
litie
s in
the
rece
ivin
g St
ate
The
Cou
rt o
bser
ves i
n th
at re
gard
that
it h
as
prev
ious
ly q
uest
ione
d th
e ac
cess
ibili
ty o
f car
e (s
ee A
swat
and
Tata
r) a
nd re
ferr
ed to
the
need
to c
onsid
er
the
cost
of m
edic
atio
n an
d tr
eatm
ent
the
exist
ence
of a
soci
al a
nd fa
mily
net
wor
k a
nd th
e di
stan
ce
to b
e tr
avel
led
in o
rder
to h
ave
acce
ss to
the
requ
ired
care
(see
Kar
agoz
v F
ranc
e (d
ec)
no
475
319
9
15 Novem
ber2
001N
v t
he U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m a
nd th
e re
fere
nces
cite
d th
erei
n a
nd E
O v
Ita
ly (d
ec))
Mas
lov
v Au
stria
[GC]
no
163
803
23 June
20
08
Mur
ray
v th
e N
ethe
rland
s [GC
] no
105
111026 Ap
ril
2016
N v
Uni
ted
King
dom
[GC]n
o 26
56505
27
May200
8
Pret
ty v
Uni
ted
King
domn
o 23
4602
29 April20
02
SHH
v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 603
6710
29 Ja
nuary20
13
Saad
i v It
aly
[GC]
no
372
0106
28 Feb
ruary20
08
Sufi
and
Elm
i v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m n
os 8
319
07
and11
44907
28 June
20
11
116 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo191
W
here
afte
r the
rele
vant
info
rmat
ion
has b
een
exam
ined
ser
ious
dou
bts p
ersis
t reg
ardi
ng th
e im
pact
of r
emov
al o
n th
e pe
rson
s con
cern
ed ndash
on
acco
unt o
f the
gen
eral
situ
atio
n in
the
rece
ivin
g co
untr
y an
dor
thei
r ind
ivid
ual s
ituat
ion
ndash th
e re
turn
ing
Stat
e m
ust o
btai
n in
divi
dual
and
suffi
cien
t ass
uran
ces
from
the
rece
ivin
g St
ate
as a
pre
cond
ition
for r
emov
al t
hat a
ppro
pria
te tr
eatm
ent w
ill b
e av
aila
ble
and
acce
ssib
le to
the
pers
ons c
once
rned
so th
at th
ey d
o no
t fin
d th
emse
lves
in a
situ
atio
n co
ntra
ry to
Art
icle
3
(on
the
subj
ect o
f ind
ivid
ual a
ssur
ance
s se
e Ta
rakh
el)
lsquo192
Th
e Co
urt e
mph
asise
s tha
t in
cas
es c
once
rnin
g th
e re
mov
al o
f ser
ious
ly il
l per
sons
the
eve
nt w
hich
tr
igge
rs th
e in
hum
an a
nd d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t an
d w
hich
eng
ages
the
resp
onsib
ility
of t
he re
turn
ing
Stat
e un
der A
rtic
le 3
is n
ot th
e la
ck o
f med
ical
infr
astr
uctu
re in
the
rece
ivin
g St
ate
Lik
ewise
the
issu
e is
not o
ne o
f any
obl
igat
ion
for t
he re
turn
ing
Stat
e to
alle
viat
e th
e di
spar
ities
bet
wee
n its
hea
lth-c
are
syst
em
and
the
leve
l of t
reat
men
t exi
stin
g in
the
rece
ivin
g St
ate
thro
ugh
the
prov
ision
of f
ree
and
unlim
ited
heal
th c
are
to a
ll al
iens
with
out a
righ
t to
stay
with
in it
s jur
isdic
tion
The
resp
onsib
ility
that
is e
ngag
ed
unde
r the
Con
vent
ion
in c
ases
of t
his t
ype
is th
at o
f the
retu
rnin
g St
ate
on
acco
unt o
f an
act ndash
in th
is in
stan
ce e
xpul
sion
ndash w
hich
wou
ld re
sult
in a
n in
divi
dual
bei
ng e
xpos
ed to
a ri
sk o
f tre
atm
ent p
rohi
bite
d by
Art
icle
3
lsquo193
La
stly
the
fact
that
the
third
cou
ntry
con
cern
ed is
a C
ontr
actin
g Pa
rty
to th
e Co
nven
tion
is no
t de
cisiv
e W
hile
the
Cour
t agr
ees w
ith th
e Go
vern
men
t tha
t the
pos
sibili
ty fo
r the
app
lican
t to
initi
ate
proc
eedi
ngs o
n hi
s ret
urn
to G
eorg
ia w
as i
n pr
inci
ple
the
mos
t nat
ural
rem
edy
unde
r the
Con
vent
ion
syst
em i
t obs
erve
s tha
t the
aut
horit
ies i
n th
e re
turn
ing
Stat
e ar
e no
t exe
mpt
ed o
n th
at a
ccou
nt fr
om th
eir
duty
of p
reve
ntio
n un
der A
rtic
le 3
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n (s
ee a
mon
g ot
her a
utho
ritie
s M
SS
v B
elgi
um a
nd
Gree
ce a
nd Ta
rakh
el)rsquo
Tara
khel
v S
witz
erla
nd
[GC]
no
2921
712
4 Novem
ber2
014
Tata
r v S
witz
erla
nd
no 656
921214 Ap
ril
2015
Trab
elsi
v Be
lgiu
m
no 140
10
4 Septem
ber2
014
VS a
nd O
ther
s v F
ranc
e (dec)no
352
2611
25 Novem
ber2
014
Vilv
araj
ah a
nd O
ther
s v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no
s 131
638
7
1316
487
131
658
7
1344
787
134
488
7
30 Octob
er199
1
Yoh-
Ekal
e M
wan
je
v Be
lgiu
m
no 104
8610
20 Decem
ber2
011
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 117
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
SF a
nd O
ther
s v B
ulga
ria
no 813
816
071
220
17
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
inhu
man
or d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t ndash d
eten
tion
ndash ch
ild sp
ecifi
c co
nsid
erat
ions
ndash e
ffect
ive
rem
edy
Para
s 8
4-93
lsquo84
In th
is ca
se t
he p
erio
d un
der c
onsid
erat
ion
was
acc
ordi
ng to
the
Gove
rnm
entrsquos
cal
cula
tions
ab
out t
hirt
y-tw
o ho
urs
Acc
ordi
ng to
the
appl
ican
tsrsquo c
alcu
latio
ns i
t was
abo
ut fo
rty-
one
hour
s (se
e pa
ragr
aphs
11
and
29 a
bove
) W
hich
ever
of t
he tw
o ve
rsio
ns is
take
n as
cor
rect
it i
s cle
ar th
at th
is am
ount
of t
ime
was
con
sider
ably
shor
ter t
han
the
perio
ds a
t iss
ue in
the
case
s men
tione
d in
the
prev
ious
pa
ragr
aphs
How
ever
the
con
ditio
ns in
the
bord
er p
olic
ersquos d
eten
tion
faci
lity
in V
idin
as d
escr
ibed
by
the
appl
ican
ts (w
ithou
t bei
ng c
ontr
adic
ted
by th
e Go
vern
men
t) a
nd a
s rev
eale
d by
the
vide
o su
bmitt
ed b
y th
em w
ere
cons
ider
ably
wor
se th
an th
ose
in a
ll th
ose
case
s T
he c
ell i
n w
hich
the
appl
ican
ts w
ere
kept
th
ough
rela
tivel
y w
ell v
entil
ated
and
lit
was
ext
rem
ely
run-
dow
n w
ith p
aint
pee
ling
off t
he w
alls
and
ceili
ng d
irty
and
wor
n ou
t bun
k be
ds m
attr
esse
s and
bed
line
n a
nd li
tter
and
dam
p ca
rdbo
ard
on th
e flo
or (s
ee p
arag
raph
15
abov
e) I
t can
har
dly
be sa
id th
at th
ose
wer
e su
itabl
e co
nditi
ons i
n w
hich
to k
eep
a six
teen
-yea
r old
an
elev
en-y
ear o
ld a
nd e
spec
ially
a o
ne-a
nd-a
-hal
f-yea
r old
eve
n fo
r suc
h a
shor
t pe
riod
of ti
me
lsquo85
To
this
shou
ld b
e ad
ded
the
limite
d po
ssib
ilitie
s for
acc
essin
g th
e to
ilet
whi
ch ndash
as a
sser
ted
by th
e ap
plic
ants
and
as r
evea
led
by th
e vi
deo
whi
ch th
ey su
bmitt
ed (s
ee p
arag
raph
s 15
20
24a
nd 2
7 ab
ove)
ndash
forc
ed th
em to
urin
ate
onto
the
floor
of t
he c
ell i
n w
hich
they
wer
e ke
pt S
ince
the
Gove
rnm
ent d
id n
ot
disp
ute
that
ass
ertio
n or
subm
it an
y ev
iden
ce to
disp
rove
it i
t mus
t be
rega
rded
as p
rove
n
lsquo86
The
Cou
rt h
as m
any
times
hel
d in
rela
tion
to p
rison
s and
pre
-tria
l det
entio
n fa
cilit
ies
that
subj
ectin
g a
deta
inee
to th
e hu
mili
atio
n of
hav
ing
to re
lieve
him
self
or h
erse
lf in
a b
ucke
t in
the
pres
ence
of o
ther
in
mat
es c
an h
ave
no ju
stifi
catio
n e
xcep
t in
spec
ific
situa
tions
whe
re a
llow
ing
visit
s to
the
sani
tary
fa
cilit
ies w
ould
pos
e a
conc
rete
and
serio
us sa
fety
risk
(see
the
case
s cite
d in
Har
akch
iev
and
Tolu
mov
v
Bulg
aria
nos
150
181
1 an
d 61
199
12sect211
ECH
R20
14(e
xtracts))Tha
tmustb
eseen
ase
quallyifnot
mor
e a
pplic
able
to d
etai
ned
min
or m
igra
nts
AB a
nd O
ther
s v
Fran
cen
o 11
59312
12
July201
6
AF v
Gre
ece
no
537
091113 June
20
13
AM a
nd O
ther
s v
Fran
cen
o 24
58712
12
July201
6
AS v
Sw
itzer
land
no
393
501330 June
20
15
Abdi
Mah
amud
v
Mal
tan
o 56
79613
3 May201
6
Abdu
llahi
Elm
i and
Aw
eys A
buba
kar
v M
alta
nos
257
941
3 an
d 28
151
13
22 Novem
ber2
016
Al N
ashi
ri v
Pola
nd
no 287
611124 July
2014
118 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo87
The
fina
l ele
men
t to
be ta
ken
into
acc
ount
is th
e au
thor
ities
rsquo alle
ged
failu
re to
pro
vide
the
appl
ican
ts
with
food
and
drin
k fo
r mor
e th
an tw
enty
-four
hou
rs a
fter t
akin
g th
em in
to c
usto
dy (s
ee p
arag
raph
s 20
25
and
26
abov
e a
nd se
e a
lso a
s reg
ards
the
adeq
uate
pro
visio
n of
food
to p
eopl
e in
det
entio
n Kad
iķis
v L
atvi
a (n
o 2
) no
623
930
0sect554 M
ay200
6S
tepu
leac
v M
oldo
va n
o 8
207
06sect556 Novem
ber
2007
and
Kor
neyk
ova
and
Korn
eyko
v v
Ukr
aine
no
566
601
2sect141
24 March201
6)The
app
lican
tsrsquo
alle
gatio
ns in
that
resp
ect m
ust l
ikew
ise b
e se
en a
s pro
ven
giv
en th
at th
e Go
vern
men
t onl
y st
ated
th
at th
ey h
ad b
een
prov
ided
with
qua
ntiti
es o
f foo
d am
ount
ing
to th
e pr
escr
ibed
dai
ly ra
tions
with
out
com
men
ting
on th
e sp
ecifi
c al
lega
tions
abo
ut th
e se
rious
del
ay in
the
prov
ision
of f
ood
and
the
man
ner i
n w
hich
it h
ad in
fact
bee
n pr
ovid
ed (s
ee p
arag
raph
26
abov
e)
lsquo88
Nor
did
the
Gove
rnm
ent d
isput
e th
e al
lega
tion
that
the
seco
nd a
pplic
ant h
ad o
nly
been
giv
en a
cces
s to
the
baby
bot
tle a
nd th
e m
ilk o
f the
todd
ler (
the
fifth
app
lican
t) a
bout
nin
etee
n ho
urs a
fter t
hey
had
been
take
n in
to c
usto
dy (s
ee p
arag
raph
23
abov
e) T
he sm
all s
houl
der b
ag w
hich
can
be
seen
in th
e vi
deo
subm
itted
by
the
appl
ican
ts (s
ee p
arag
raph
15
abov
e) d
oes n
ot a
ppea
r to
cont
ain
such
item
s In
any
ev
ent
a fa
cilit
y in
whi
ch a
one
-and
-a-h
alf-y
ear-o
ld c
hild
is k
ept i
n cu
stod
y e
ven
for a
brie
f per
iod
of ti
me
m
ust b
e su
itabl
y eq
uipp
ed fo
r tha
t pur
pose
whi
ch d
oes n
ot a
ppea
r to
have
bee
n th
e ca
se w
ith th
e bo
rder
po
licersquo
s det
entio
n fa
cilit
y in
Vid
in
lsquo89
The
com
bina
tion
of th
e ab
ove-
men
tione
d fa
ctor
s mus
t hav
e af
fect
ed c
onsid
erab
ly th
e th
ird f
ourt
h an
d fif
th a
pplic
ants
bot
h ph
ysic
ally
and
psy
chol
ogic
ally
and
mus
t hav
e ha
d pa
rtic
ular
ly n
efar
ious
effe
cts
on th
e fif
th a
pplic
ant i
n vi
ew o
f his
very
you
ng a
ge T
hose
effe
cts w
ere
hard
ly o
ffset
by
the
few
hou
rs th
at
he sp
ent i
n th
e ho
spita
l in
Vidi
n in
the
afte
rnoo
n an
d ev
enin
g of
18A
ugus
t 201
5 (s
ee p
arag
raph
25
abov
e)
lsquo90
By
keep
ing
thos
e th
ree
appl
ican
ts in
such
con
ditio
ns e
ven
for a
brie
f per
iod
of ti
me
the
Bulg
aria
n au
thor
ities
subj
ecte
d th
em to
inhu
man
and
deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent
lsquo91
It i
s tru
e th
at in
rece
nt y
ears
the
High
Con
trac
ting
Stat
es th
at si
t on
the
Euro
pean
Uni
onrsquos
exte
rnal
bo
rder
s had
diff
icul
ties i
n co
ping
with
the
mas
sive
influ
x of
mig
rant
s (se
e M
SS
v B
elgi
um a
nd G
reec
e
citedab
ovesect223
)Bu
taperusalofthe
relevantstatisticss
howstha
talth
ough
thenu
mbe
rsarenot
negl
igib
le i
n re
cent
yea
rs B
ulga
ria h
as b
y no
mea
ns b
een
the
wor
st a
ffect
ed c
ount
ry (s
ee p
arag
raph
s 8
and
39-4
1 ab
ove)
Ind
eed
the
num
ber o
f thi
rd-c
ount
ry n
atio
nals
foun
d ill
egal
ly p
rese
nt o
n its
terr
itory
in
the
cour
se o
f 201
5 w
as a
bout
twen
ty ti
mes
low
er th
an in
Gre
ece
and
abou
t for
ty-fo
ur ti
mes
low
er th
an
in H
unga
ry (i
bid
) It
cann
ot th
eref
ore
be sa
id th
at a
t the
rele
vant
tim
e Bu
lgar
ia w
as fa
cing
an
emer
genc
y of
such
pro
port
ions
that
it w
as p
ract
ical
ly im
poss
ible
for i
ts to
ens
ure
min
imal
ly d
ecen
t con
ditio
ns in
th
e sh
ort-t
erm
hol
ding
faci
litie
s in
whi
ch th
ey d
ecid
ed to
pla
ce m
inor
mig
rant
s im
med
iate
ly a
fter t
heir
inte
rcep
tion
and
arre
st (c
ontr
ast
mut
atis
mut
andi
s K
hlai
fia a
nd O
ther
scite
dab
ovesectsect17
8-83
)
Alim
ov v
Tur
key
no
143
4413
6 Septem
ber2
016
Anan
yev
and
Oth
ers
v Ru
ssia
nos
425
250
7 an
d 60
800
08
10 Ja
nuary20
12
Atan
asov
and
Ap
osto
lov
v Bu
lgar
ia
(dec
) no
s 655
401
6 an
d22
36817
27 June
20
17
Chob
an v
Bul
garia
(dec)no
487
3799
23 Ju
ne200
5
Davy
dov
and
O
ther
s v U
krai
ne
nos 1
7674
02
and
3908
102
1 Ju
ly201
0
De lo
s San
tos a
nd
de la
Cru
z v G
reec
e
nos 2
134
12 a
nd
2161
1226 June
201
4
Dem
opou
los a
nd O
ther
s v
Turk
ey (d
ec) [
GC]
nos 4
6113
99
384
302
13
751
02 1
3466
03
10
200
04 1
4163
04
19
993
04 2
1819
04
1 March201
0
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 119
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo92
In
any
even
t in
vie
w o
f the
abs
olut
e ch
arac
ter o
f Art
icle
3 o
f the
Con
vent
ion
an
incr
easin
g in
flux
of
mig
rant
s can
not a
bsol
ve a
Hig
h Co
ntra
ctin
g St
ate
of it
s obl
igat
ions
und
er th
at p
rovi
sion
whi
ch re
quire
s th
at p
eopl
e de
priv
ed o
f the
ir lib
erty
be
guar
ante
ed c
ondi
tions
com
patib
le w
ith re
spec
t for
thei
r hum
an
dign
ity A
situ
atio
n of
ext
rem
e di
fficu
lty c
onfr
ontin
g th
e au
thor
ities
is h
owev
er o
ne o
f the
fact
ors i
n th
e as
sess
men
t whe
ther
or n
ot th
ere
has b
een
a br
each
of t
hat A
rtic
le in
rela
tion
to th
e co
nditi
ons i
n w
hich
suchpeo
plearekeptin
custody
(ibidsectsect18
4-85
)
lsquo93
In
view
of t
he a
bove
con
sider
atio
ns t
he C
ourt
con
clud
es th
at th
ere
has b
een
a br
each
of A
rtic
le 3
of
the
Conv
entio
n w
ith re
spec
t to
the
third
fou
rth
and
fifth
app
lican
tsrsquo
Djal
ti v
Bulg
aria
no
312
060512 March
2013
Erke
nov
v Tu
rkey
no
181
5211
6 Septem
ber2
016
Foti
and
Oth
ers v
Ital
y
nos 7
604
76 7
719
76
7781
7711 May197
8
Giul
iani
and
Ga
ggio
v It
aly
[GC]
no
234
580224 March
2011
Gros
s v S
witz
erla
nd
[GC]n
o 67
81010
30
Sep
tembe
r201
4
Hara
kchi
ev a
nd
Tolu
mov
v B
ulga
ria
nos 1
5018
11
and
6119
912
8 Ju
ly201
4
Hous
ein
v Gr
eece
no
718
2511
24 Octob
er201
3
Husa
yn (A
bu
Zuba
ydah
) v P
olan
d
no 751
113
24 July
2014
Irela
nd v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no 53
1071
18 Ja
nuary19
78
120 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Jano
wie
c and
Oth
ers
v Ru
ssia
[GC]
no
s 555
080
7 an
d 295200921 Octob
er
2013
Kadiķis v
Latv
ia (n
o 2)
no
62393004 M
ay
2006
Kana
gara
tnam
v
Belg
ium
no 1529709
13 Decem
ber2
011
Khla
ifia
and
Oth
ers v
Ital
y
[GC]no 1648312
15 Decem
ber2
016
Korn
eyko
va a
nd
Korn
eyko
v v U
krai
ne
no 566601224 March
2016
Loizd
ou v
Turk
ey
(pre
limin
ary
obje
ctio
ns)
no 153188923 March
1995
MSS
v B
elgi
um
and
Gree
ce [
GC]
no 306960921 Janu
ary
2011
Mah
amed
Jam
a v
Mal
tano 1029013
26 Novem
ber2
015
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 121
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Mah
mun
di a
nd O
ther
s v
Gree
cen
o 14
90210
31
July201
2
McF
eele
y an
d ot
hers
v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no
831
778
2 Octob
er
1984
Miro
ļubo
vs and
Others
v La
tvia
no 79
805
15
Sep
tembe
r200
9
Moh
amad
v G
reec
e
no 705
8611
11 Decem
ber2
014
Mox
amed
Ism
aaci
il an
d Ab
dira
hman
War
sam
e v
Mal
ta n
os 5
2160
13
and
5216
513
12
Janu
ary20
16
Mus
khad
zhiy
eva
and
Oth
ers v
Bel
gium
no
414
4207
19 Ja
nuary20
10
Nac
hova
and
Oth
ers
v Bu
lgar
ia [G
C]
nos 4
3577
98
and
4357
998
6 Ju
ly200
5
122 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Nesh
kov a
nd O
ther
s v
Bulg
aria
nos
36
925
10 2
1487
12
72
893
12 7
3196
12
77
718
12 a
nd 9
717
13
27 Janu
ary2015
Popo
v v Fr
ance
no
s 394
720
7 an
d 394740719 Janu
ary
2012
Pose
vini
v B
ulga
ria
no 636381419 Janu
ary
2017
RC a
nd V
C v
Fran
ce
no 764911412 July
2016
RK a
nd O
ther
s v Fr
ance
no
682641412 July
2016
RM a
nd O
ther
s v Fr
ance
no
332011112 July
2016
Rahi
mi v
Gre
ece
no
8687085 April
2011
SAS
v Fr
ance
[GC]
no
43835111 Ju
ly
2014
Sarg
syan
v A
zerb
aija
n [GC]no 4016706
16 Ju
ne2015
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 123
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Scoz
zari
and
Giun
ta v
Ital
y [G
C]
nos 3
9221
98
and
419639813 July2000
Step
ulea
c v M
oldo
va
no 820706
6 No
vembe
r2007
Tara
khel
v Sw
itzer
land
[GC]no 2921712
4 No
vembe
r2014
Tehr
ani a
nd O
ther
s v
Turk
ey n
os 3
2940
08
41
626
08 4
3661
608
13 April2
010
124 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
Thim
otha
wes
v B
elgi
um
no 390
6111(in
French
with
Eng
lish
sum
mar
y)
040
420
18
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 5
ECH
R ndash
dete
ntio
n ndash
asyl
um-s
eeke
r ndash re
foul
emen
t ndash m
enta
l hea
lth o
f the
app
lican
t
Uno
ffici
al tr
ansla
tion
Para
79
lsquo79M
oreo
vertheCo
urtcon
siderstha
tinorderto
find
aviolatio
nofArticle5sect1the
app
lican
tsho
uld
have
est
ablis
hed
that
he
was
in a
par
ticul
ar si
tuat
ion
whi
ch c
ould
prim
a fa
cie
lead
to th
e co
nclu
sion
that
hisd
eten
tionwasnotju
stified
(see
con
verselyYoh-EkaleMwan
jecite
dab
ovesect124
)Ho
weverthe
ap
plic
antrsquos
men
tal h
ealth
alo
ne w
as n
ot i
n th
e pr
esen
t cas
e su
ch a
s to
lead
to su
ch a
con
clus
ion
the
appl
ican
t rec
eive
d sp
ecia
l car
e in
the
two
clos
ed c
entr
es w
here
he
stay
ed a
nd th
e re
port
s dra
wn
up b
y th
e ps
ycho
logi
cal s
uppo
rt se
rvic
es d
id n
ot in
dica
te a
ny c
ontr
a-in
dica
tion
to d
eten
tion
(see
par
agra
phs 3
4-35
ab
ove)
rsquo
A an
d O
ther
s v
Uni
ted
King
dom
[GC]n
o 34
5505
19 Feb
ruary20
09
AB a
nd O
ther
s v
Fran
cen
o 11
59312
12
July201
6
Abdu
llahi
Elm
i and
Aw
eys A
buba
kar
v M
alta
nos
257
941
3 an
d 28
151
13
22 Novem
ber2
016
Anhe
user
-Bus
ch
Inc
v Po
rtug
al
[GC]n
o 73
04901
11
Janu
ary20
07
Assa
nidz
e v
Geor
gia
[GC]n
o 71
50301
8 Ap
ril200
4
Chah
al v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(GC
) no
224
1493
15 Novem
ber1
995
Čonka
v Be
lgiu
m
no 515
6499
5 Februa
ry200
2
Crea
ngă
v Ro
man
ia
[GC]n
o 29
22603
23
Feb
ruary20
12
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 125
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Del R
iacuteo P
rada
v S
pain
[GC]no 4275009
21 Octob
er2013
Hass
an v
The
Un
ited
King
dom
[GC]no 2975009
19 Sep
tembe
r2014
Hous
ein
v Gr
eece
no
7182511
24 Octob
er2013
Jeun
esse
v T
he
Neth
erla
nds [
GC]
no 12738103 Octob
er
2014
Kana
gara
tnam
v
Belg
ium
no 1529709
13 Decem
ber2
011
Khla
ifia
and
Oth
ers v
Ital
y [GC]no 1648312
15 Decem
ber2
016
Khol
mur
odov
v R
ussia
no
58923141 M
arch
2016
Labi
ta c
Italy
[GC]
no
26772956 April
2000
126 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Med
vedy
ev a
nd
Oth
ers v
Fran
ce [G
C]
no 33940329 March
2010
Moo
ren
v Ge
rman
y [GC]no 1136403
9 July2009
Moz
er v
The
Rup
ublic
of
Mol
dova
and
Rus
sia
[GC]no 1113810
23 Fe
bruary2016
Mub
ilanz
ila M
ayek
a an
d Ka
niki
Mitu
nga
v Be
lgiu
m no
1317
803
12 Octob
er2006
Mus
khad
zhiy
eva
and
Oth
ers v
Bel
gium
no
414420719 Janu
ary
2010
Nabi
l and
Oth
ers
v Hun
garyno 6211612
22 Sep
tembe
r2015
Ntum
ba K
abon
go
v Be
lgiu
m (d
ec)
no 52467992 Ju
ne
2005
Para
diso
and
Ca
mpa
nelli
v Ita
ly
[GC]no 2535812
24 Janu
ary2017
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 127
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Popo
v v Fr
ance
no
s 394
720
7 an
d 394740719 Janu
ary
2012
Rahi
mi v
Gre
ece
no
8687085 April
2011
Rohl
ena
v Th
e Cz
ech
Repu
blic
[GC]
no
595520827 Janu
ary
2015
Rusu
v A
ustr
ia
no 34082022 Octob
er
2008
Saad
i v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
[GC]no 1322903
29 Janu
ary2008
Suso
Mus
a v
Mal
ta
no 423371223 July
2013
Taku
sh v
Gre
ece
no
28530917 Janu
ary
2012
Ulle
ns d
e Sc
hoot
en a
nd
Reza
bek
v Be
lgiu
m
nos 3
989
07
et 3
8353
07
20 Sep
tembe
r2011
128 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Wai
te a
nd K
enne
dy
v Ge
rman
y [G
C]
no 2608394
18 Fe
bruary1999
Yoh-
Ekal
e M
wan
je
v Be
lgiu
mno 1048610
20 Decem
ber2
011
ECtH
R
HA e
t aut
res c
Gregrave
ce
no 199
5116(in
French
with
Eng
lish
sum
mar
y)
280
220
19
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R - i
nhum
an a
nd d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t - co
nditi
ons o
f the
app
lican
tsrsquo d
eten
tion
in th
e po
lice
stat
ions
Unof
ficia
l tra
nsla
tion
Para
s 11
1-11
5
lsquo111O
n13 April2
016th
eprosecutoratthe
KilkisMagistratesrsquoCo
urto
rdered
aprelim
inaryinvestigation
lsquo112
In
the
cour
se o
f tha
t inv
estig
atio
n co
nduc
ted
by th
e po
lice
offic
ers o
f the
Kilk
is po
lice
stat
ion
the
offic
ers
who
wereon
dutyatth
atstationon
8and
9 April2
016th
epo
liceofficerwho
hadaccom
panied
thetw
oap
plica
nts t
o th
e Ki
lkis
hosp
ital a
nd th
e po
lice
offic
er w
ho h
ad ta
ken
the
appl
icant
liste
d in
App
endi
x 7 to
the
Thes
salo
niki
hos
pita
l mad
e re
port
s Th
e po
lice
offic
er w
ho h
ad a
ccom
pani
ed th
e tw
o ap
plica
nts t
o th
e Ki
lkis
hosp
ital s
tate
d th
at ldquot
he a
pplic
ants
did
not
hav
e th
e at
titud
e of
sick
or b
eate
n-up
peo
ple
and
show
ed a
t all
times
that
they
wer
e w
ellrdquo
In a
dditi
on f
our f
orei
gn n
atio
nals
who
had
bee
n de
tain
ed a
t the
sam
e tim
e as
the
two
appl
icant
s at t
he K
ilkis
polic
e st
atio
n al
so g
ave
stat
emen
ts t
hey
stat
ed th
at th
e be
havi
our o
f the
pol
ice
offic
ers t
owar
ds th
e ap
plica
nts h
ad b
een
corr
ect
that
they
had
not
use
d an
y vi
olen
ce a
gain
st th
e ap
plica
nts
that
they
had
repe
ated
ly a
sked
the
appl
icant
s whe
ther
they
wish
ed to
go
to h
ospi
tal a
nd th
at a
t one
poi
nt
whe
n th
e ap
plica
nts h
ad re
port
edly
bee
n ca
lm t
hey
had
begu
n to
pro
test
and
requ
este
d th
eir t
rans
fer t
o ho
spita
l a
requ
est w
hich
wou
ld h
ave
been
gra
nted
lsquo113
On
the
basis
of t
hese
fact
s th
e Ki
lkis
polic
e st
atio
n se
nt a
repo
rt to
the
publ
ic pr
osec
utor
at t
he K
ilkis
Mag
istra
tesrsquo
Cour
t sta
ting
that
thr
ough
out t
he tw
o ap
plica
ntsrsquo
stay
at t
he p
olice
stat
ion
the
polic
e of
ficer
srsquo co
nduc
t tow
ards
the
appl
icant
s had
bee
n ap
prop
riate
and
resp
ectfu
l of h
uman
righ
ts a
nd o
f the
rule
s and
law
s go
vern
ing
the
oper
atio
n of
the
Gree
k po
lice
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 129
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo114O
n24 Octob
er2016thepu
blicprosecutoratthe
KilkisMagistratesrsquoCo
urtp
ropo
sedtoclosethecase
He p
oint
ed o
ut th
at th
e ab
ove-
men
tione
d re
port
s sho
wed
that
the
polic
e of
ficer
s had
not
eng
aged
in v
iole
nt
beha
viou
r th
at th
e ap
plica
nts t
hem
selve
s had
bee
n th
e ca
use
of th
e un
rest
at K
ilkis
polic
e st
atio
n th
at th
ey
had
been
tran
sferr
ed to
hos
pita
l th
at th
ey co
uld
com
mun
icate
with
third
par
ties (
repr
esen
tativ
es o
f non
-go
vern
men
tal o
rgan
isatio
ns) a
nd th
at n
one
of th
eir a
llega
tions
had
bee
n co
nfirm
ed b
y an
y ev
iden
ce H
e st
ated
th
at w
hene
ver t
he a
pplic
ants
had
requ
este
d it
they
had
bee
n tra
nsfe
rred
to K
ilkis
Hosp
ital
whe
re th
ey h
ad
been
foun
d to
be
in g
ood
heal
th a
nd th
at o
nly
the
appl
icant
liste
d in
the
anne
x und
er n
umbe
r 7 h
ad sh
own
som
e sy
mpt
oms o
f dizz
ines
s and
suffo
catio
n w
ith a
card
iolo
gica
l cau
se
lsquo115O
n25 Janu
ary2017th
epu
blicprosecutoratthe
The
ssalon
ikiCou
rtofA
ppealapp
rovedthede
cisionof
the
publ
ic pr
osec
utor
in K
ilkis
and
close
d th
e ca
sersquo
130 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R (G
rand
Ch
ambe
r)
Ilias
and
Ahm
ed
v Hu
ngar
y
no 472
8715
211
120
19
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R - i
nhum
an a
nd d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t ndash re
mov
al to
Ser
bia
Para
192
lsquo192
The
Gra
nd C
ham
ber e
ndor
ses t
he C
ham
berrsquos
vie
w th
at w
hile
it is
true
that
asy
lum
-see
kers
may
be
cons
ider
ed v
ulne
rabl
e be
caus
e of
eve
ryth
ing
they
mig
ht h
ave
been
thro
ugh
durin
g th
eir m
igra
tion
and
the
trau
mat
ic e
xper
ienc
es th
ey w
ere
likel
y to
hav
e en
dure
d pr
evio
usly
(see
MS
S v
Bel
gium
and
Gre
ece)
th
ere
is no
indi
catio
n th
at th
e ap
plic
ants
in th
e pr
esen
t cas
e w
ere
mor
e vu
lner
able
than
any
oth
er a
dult
asyl
um-s
eeke
r con
fined
to th
e Rӧ
szke
tran
sit zo
ne in
Sep
tem
ber 2
015
In p
artic
ular
the
ir al
lega
tions
ab
out h
ards
hip
and
ill-t
reat
men
t end
ured
in P
akist
an A
fgha
nist
an I
ran
Dub
ai a
nd T
urke
y co
ncer
n a
perio
d of
tim
e w
hich
end
ed in
201
0 or
201
1 fo
r the
firs
t app
lican
t and
in 2
013
for t
he se
cond
app
lican
t Al
so t
he C
ourt
doe
s not
con
sider
that
the
psyc
hiat
ristrsquos
opi
nion
(see
par
agra
ph 3
0 ab
ove)
subm
itted
by
the
appl
ican
ts is
dec
isive
hav
ing
rega
rd to
its c
onte
xt a
nd c
onte
nt a
nd ta
king
into
con
sider
atio
n th
at th
e ap
plic
ants
stay
ed a
t the
Rӧs
zke
tran
sit zo
ne fo
r the
rela
tivel
y sh
ort p
erio
d of
23
days
the
psy
chia
trist
rsquos ob
serv
atio
ns c
anno
t lea
d to
the
conc
lusio
n th
at th
e ot
herw
ise a
ccep
tabl
e co
nditi
ons a
t the
Rӧs
zke
tran
sit
zone
wer
e pa
rtic
ular
ly il
l-sui
ted
in th
e ap
plic
ants
rsquo ind
ivid
ual c
ircum
stan
ces t
o su
ch a
n ex
tent
as t
o am
ount
to
ill-t
reat
men
t con
trar
y to
Art
icle
3rsquo
Abdu
laziz
Cab
ales
and
Ba
lkand
ali v
Uni
ted
King
dom
nos
921
480
94
738
1 9
474
81
Abuy
eva
and
Oth
ers
v Ru
ssia2 Decem
ber
2010no 2706505
28 M
ay1985
Al D
ulim
i and
Mon
tana
M
anag
emen
t Inc
v
Switz
erla
nd [G
C]
no 58090821 June
20
16
Alla
n v
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m
(dec)no
485399928
Augu
st 2
001
Amuu
r v F
ranc
e
no 197
769225 June
19
96
Avotiņš v
Lat
via
[GC]
no
175
020723 May
2016
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 131
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Azin
as v
Cyp
rus [
GC]
no 566
790028 Ap
ril
2004
Baba
jano
v v
Turk
ey
no 498
670810 May
2016
Bosp
horu
s Hav
a Yo
llari
Turiz
m v
e Ti
care
t An
onim
Sirk
eti v
Irel
and
[GC]n
o 45
03698
30
June
200
5
Budr
evic
h v
Czec
h Re
publ
icn
o 65
30310
17
Octob
er201
3
Buza
dji v
Mol
dova
[GC]n
o 23
75507
5 July201
6
Chah
al v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(GC
) no
224
1493
15 Novem
ber1
995
DH a
nd O
ther
s v
Czec
h Re
publ
ic
[GC]n
o 57
32500
13
Novem
ber2
007
De To
mm
aso
v Ita
ly
[GC]n
o 43
39509
23
Feb
ruary20
17
132 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
De W
ilde
Oom
s and
Ve
rsyp
nos
283
266
28
356
6 2
899
66
10 M
arch197
2
FG v
Sw
eden
[GC]
no
436
111123 March
2016
Faacutebi
aacuten v
Hun
gary
[GC]n
o 78
11713
5 Septem
ber2
017
Gahr
aman
ov
v Az
erba
ijan
(dec
) no
262
910
6
15 Octob
er201
3
Gillb
erg
v Sw
eden
[GC]
no
417
23063 April
2012
Goumlccedil
v Tu
rkey
[GC]
no
365
909711 July
2002
Guer
ra a
nd
Oth
ers v
Ital
y
no 116
199
673
593
2
19 Feb
ruary19
98
Guzz
ardi
v It
aly
no
736
776
6 Novem
ber1
980
HLR
v Fr
ance
no
245
739429 Ap
ril
1997
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 133
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Herr
man
n v
Germ
any
[GC]n
o 93
0007
26 Ju
ne201
2
Hila
l v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 452
76996 M
arch
2001
Hirs
i Jam
aa a
nd
Oth
ers v
Ital
y [G
C]
no 277
6509
23 Feb
ruary20
12
II v
Bulg
aria
no
440
82989 Ju
ne
2005
J and
Oth
ers v
Gre
ece
no
226
9616
25 Ja
nuary20
18
K an
d T
v Fi
nlan
d [G
C]
no 257
029412 July
2001
KRS
v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
(dec)no
327
3308
2 De
cembe
r200
8
Kasp
arov
v R
ussia
no
536
5907
11 Octob
er201
6
Khla
ifia
and
Oth
ers v
Ital
y [G
C]
no 164
8312
15 Decem
ber2
016
134 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Kovačić an
d Others
v Sl
oven
ia [G
C]
nos 4
4574
98
45
133
98 4
8316
99
3 Octob
er200
8
Kurić
and
Others
v Sl
oven
ia [G
C]
no 268
280612 March
2014
Kurt
v T
urke
y
no 1519
97799
100
2
25 M
ay199
8
MSS
v B
elgi
um
and
Gree
ce [
GC]
no 306
9609
21 Ja
nuary20
11
Mah
did
and
Hadd
ar
v Au
stria
(dec
) no
747
6201
8 De
cembe
r200
5
Mam
atku
lov
and
Aska
rov
v Tu
rkey
[GC]
no
s 468
279
9 an
d 46
95199
4 Feb
ruary
2005
Mog
oş v
Rom
ania
(dec)no
204
2002
6 May200
4
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 135
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Moh
amm
adi v
Aus
tria
no
719
32123 Ju
ly
2014
Moh
amm
ed H
usse
in
and
Oth
ers v
the
Net
herla
nds a
nd It
aly
(dec)no
277
2510
2 Ap
ril201
3
Mur
ray
v th
e N
ethe
rland
s [GC
] no
105
111026 Ap
ril
2016
Nad
a v
Switz
erla
nd
[GC]n
o 10
59308
12
Sep
tembe
r201
2
Nol
an a
nd K
v
Russ
ian
o 25
1204
12 Feb
ruary20
09
Osy
penk
o v
Ukr
aine
no
463
404
9 Novem
ber2
010
Papo
shvi
li v
Belg
ium
no
417
3810
13 Decem
ber2
016
Pern
a v
Italy
[GC]
no
488
98996 M
ay
2003
Pisa
no v
Ital
y (s
trik
ing
out)[G
C]n
o 36
73297
24
Octob
er200
2
136 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Rado
milj
a an
d O
ther
s v
Croa
tia [G
C]
nos 3
7685
10
and
2276
812
20 March
2018
Riad
and
Idia
b v
Belg
ium
no
s 297
870
3 an
d 29
81003
24 Janu
ary
2008
Sabri G
uumlneş
v T
urke
y [GC]n
o 27
39606
29
June
201
2
Sala
h Sh
eekh
v
the
Net
herla
nds
no
194
804
11 Janu
ary
2007
Sham
sa v
Pol
and
no
s 453
559
9 an
d 45
357
99
27 Novem
ber2
003
Shar
ifi v
Aus
tria
no
601
0408
15 Decem
ber2
013
Siso
jeva
and
O
ther
s v L
atvi
a [GC]n
o 60
65400
15
Janu
ary20
07
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 137
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Soer
ing
v Un
ited
King
dom
no
1403
888
7 July198
9
TI v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(dec)no
438
4498
7 March200
0
Tara
khel
v S
witz
erla
nd
[GC]
no
2921
712
4 Novem
ber2
014
Uumlne
r v th
e N
ethe
rland
s [GC]n
o 46
41099
18
Octob
er200
6
Venskutė
v L
ithua
nia
no
106
4508
11 Decem
ber2
012
Vija
yana
than
and
Pu
spar
ajah
v F
ranc
e
no 178
259127
Augu
st 1
992
Vilv
araj
ah a
nd O
ther
s v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no
s 131
638
7
1316
487
131
658
7
1344
787
134
488
7
30 Octob
er199
1
Zuba
c v
Croa
tia [G
C]
no 401
60125 April
2018
138 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Uni
ted
Nat
ions
hum
an ri
ghts
mon
itorin
g co
mm
ittee
s
Com
mitt
eeCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
dat
eRe
leva
nce
keyw
ords
key
rele
vant
par
agra
phs
Case
s cite
d
Com
mitt
ee
Agai
nst
Tort
ure
Gba
djav
i v S
witz
erla
nd
CAT
C48
D3
962
009
010
720
12
Deci
sion
of th
e Co
mm
ittee
aga
inst
Tort
ure
unde
r Art
icle
22
of th
e Co
nven
tion
agai
nst T
ortu
re a
nd O
ther
Cr
uel
Inhu
man
or D
egra
ding
Tre
atm
ent o
r Pun
ishm
ent
Risk
of c
ompl
aina
ntrsquos
depo
rtat
ion
to To
go -
Depo
rtat
ion
of a
per
son
to a
noth
er S
tate
whe
re th
ere
are
subs
tant
ial g
roun
ds fo
r bel
ievi
ng th
at h
e w
ould
be
in d
ange
r of b
eing
subj
ecte
d to
tort
ure
Para
78
lsquo78
As t
o th
e m
edic
al c
ertif
icat
es a
nd re
port
s sub
mitt
ed in
supp
ort o
f the
com
plai
nant
rsquos as
ylum
ap
plicationth
ethreemed
icalcertificatesof2
5 July200
77 M
arch200
8an
d29
April20
09con
firm
the
prec
ario
us m
enta
l hea
lth o
f the
com
plai
nant
whi
ch is
con
nect
ed to
his
past
exp
erie
nces
As t
o th
e med
icalre
portof1
8 May200
9iss
uedbyth
epsychiatric
servicesofS
olothu
rnthe
Com
mittee
notes
that
it m
entio
ns te
rror
ism o
r tor
ture
as a
pos
sible
cau
se o
f the
pos
t-tra
umat
ic st
ress
diso
rder
that
the
com
plai
nant
was
dia
gnos
ed a
s hav
ing
The
Com
mitt
ee is
of t
he v
iew
that
such
ele
men
ts sh
ould
hav
e ca
ught
the
atte
ntio
n of
the
Stat
e pa
rty
and
cons
titut
ed su
ffici
ent g
roun
ds fo
r inv
estig
atin
g th
e al
lege
d ris
ks m
ore
thor
ough
ly T
he F
eder
al A
dmin
istra
tive
Cour
t sim
ply
reje
cted
them
bec
ause
they
wer
e no
t lik
ely
to c
all i
nto
ques
tion
the
asse
ssm
ent o
f the
fact
s mad
e in
pre
viou
s rul
ings
By
proc
eedi
ng in
thus
w
ithou
t con
sider
ing
thos
e el
emen
ts e
ven
thou
gh th
ey w
ere
subm
itted
at a
late
stag
e in
the
proc
eedi
ngs
th
e Sw
iss a
utho
ritie
s fai
led
in th
eir o
blig
atio
n to
ens
ure
that
the
com
plai
nant
wou
ld n
ot b
e at
risk
of b
eing
su
bjec
ted
to to
rtur
e if
he w
ere
retu
rned
to To
gorsquo
SPA
v Ca
nada
no
282
200
5
7 Novem
ber2
006
TI v
Can
ada
no
333
200
7
15 Novem
ber2
010
AMA
v Sw
itzer
land
no
344
200
8
12 Novem
ber2
010
AR v
Net
herla
nds
no
203
200
2
21 Novem
ber2
003
AA e
t al v
Sw
itzer
land
no
285
200
6
10 Novem
ber2
008
RT-N
v S
witz
erla
nd
no 350
200
83 Ju
ne
2011
Hum
an R
ight
s Co
mm
ittee
Tog
o
(CCP
RC
TGO
CO
4)
18 April20
11
Com
mitt
ee a
gain
st
Tort
ure
Togo
(CA
TC
TGOCO1)28
July
2006
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 139
Com
mitt
eeCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
dat
eRe
leva
nce
keyw
ords
key
rele
vant
par
agra
phs
Case
s cite
d
Com
mitt
ee
Agai
nst
Tort
ure
KH v
Den
mar
k
CAT
C49
D 4
642
011
231
120
12
Deci
sion
of th
e Co
mm
ittee
aga
inst
Tort
ure
unde
r Art
icle
22
of th
e Co
nven
tion
agai
nst T
ortu
re a
nd O
ther
Cr
uel
Inhu
man
or D
egra
ding
Tre
atm
ent o
r Pun
ishm
ent
Expu
lsion
of t
he c
ompl
aina
nt to
Afg
hani
stan
ndash ri
sk o
f tor
ture
upo
n re
turn
to th
e co
untr
y of
orig
in
Para
24
lsquo24The
com
plaina
ntarrived
inDen
markon
25 July201
0with
outv
alidtraveldocum
entsand
app
liedfor
asyl
um th
e ne
xt d
ay S
ince
he
was
illit
erat
e he
cou
ld n
ot c
ompl
ete
the
asyl
um a
pplic
atio
n fo
rm b
y hi
mse
lf
He c
laim
ed th
at h
e w
as fl
eein
g fr
om th
e Ta
liban
and
the
Afgh
an a
utho
ritie
s H
e ha
d be
en d
etai
ned
by th
e Ta
liban
and
then
arr
este
d by
the
auth
oriti
es a
nd w
rong
ly a
ccus
ed o
f a te
rror
ist b
ombi
ng a
ttac
k w
hile
in
dete
ntio
n he
had
bee
n ill
-tre
ated
and
tort
ured
in su
ch a
way
that
som
e of
his
ribs h
ad b
een
brok
en H
e ad
ded
that
tort
ure
was
wid
espr
ead
in A
fgha
nist
an a
nd th
at th
e au
thor
ities
wer
e un
able
to p
rote
ct th
e po
pula
tion
from
the
Talib
anrsquos
viol
ence
He
fear
ed fo
r his
life
since
he
had
been
arr
este
d by
the
auth
oriti
es
in c
onne
ctio
n w
ith a
n ex
plos
ion
in Ja
lala
bad
he
had
been
forc
ed b
y th
e Ta
liban
to c
oope
rate
with
them
an
d he
had
esc
aped
from
pris
on a
fter p
ayin
g a
brib
e If
re-a
rres
ted
he
wou
ld b
e su
bjec
ted
to to
rtur
e an
d ki
lled
He
fear
ed th
e sa
me
if th
e Ta
liban
wer
e to
find
him
sin
ce th
ey st
ill b
elie
ved
that
he
was
a sp
y fo
r th
e Go
vern
men
t Th
e co
mpl
aina
nt w
as n
ot a
war
e of
the
whe
reab
outs
of h
is fa
mily
and
cou
ld n
ot p
rovi
de
a na
tiona
lity
cert
ifica
te is
sued
by
his c
ount
ry o
f orig
inrsquo
Para
54
lsquo54
The
Dan
ish a
utho
ritie
s bas
ed th
eir a
sses
smen
t abo
ut th
e cr
edib
ility
of h
is cl
aim
on
the
dive
rgen
t st
atem
ents
he
gave
at t
he b
egin
ning
of t
he a
sylu
m p
roce
edin
gs H
owev
er t
his p
robl
em o
ften
occu
rs in
th
e fir
st in
terv
iew
of a
sylu
m se
eker
s si
nce
they
fear
to te
ll th
e tr
uth
and
feel
inse
cure
Nev
erth
eles
s th
e co
mpl
aina
nt in
form
ed th
e im
mig
ratio
n au
thor
ities
abo
ut th
e ci
rcum
stan
ces i
n w
hich
he
was
tort
ured
and
ev
en su
bmitt
ed m
edic
al e
vide
nce
in su
ppor
t of h
is cl
aim
He
reite
rate
s tha
t his
stat
emen
tsrsquo i
ncon
siste
ncie
s w
ere
caus
ed b
y in
adeq
uate
inte
rpre
tatio
n w
hich
in h
is ca
se w
as p
artic
ular
ly im
port
ant s
ince
he
is ill
itera
te a
nd c
ould
not
read
and
con
firm
whe
ther
tran
slatio
ns re
flect
ed in
an
accu
rate
man
ner w
hat h
e w
ished
to c
omm
unic
ate
to th
e au
thor
ities
His
coun
sel c
ould
not
che
ck th
e ac
cura
cy o
f the
tran
slatio
n sin
ce h
e is
not a
Pas
hto
spea
ker
Ther
efor
e th
ere
was
no
way
to v
erify
whe
ther
thes
e tr
ansla
tions
not
ed
in th
e de
cisio
ns o
f the
Imm
igra
tion
Serv
ice
and
the
Refu
gee
Appe
als B
oard
wer
e co
rrec
t and
acc
urat
ersquo
Amin
i v D
enm
ark
no
339
200
8
15 Novem
ber2
010
ERK
and
YK v
Sw
eden
no
s 270
200
5 an
d 27
120
053
0 Ap
ril
2007
SPA
v Ca
nada
no
282
200
5
7 Novem
ber2
006
FFZ
v De
nmar
k
no 180
200
130 Ap
ril
2002
SC v
Den
mar
k
no 143
199
910 May
2000
RD v
Sw
eden
no
220
200
22 M
ay
2005
SSS
v Ca
nada
no
245
200
4
16 Novem
ber2
005
MRA
v S
wed
en
no 286
200
6
17 Novem
ber2
006
Elm
i v A
ustr
alia
no
120
199
814 May
2009
140 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Com
mitt
eeCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
dat
eRe
leva
nce
keyw
ords
key
rele
vant
par
agra
phs
Case
s cite
d
Para
86
lsquo86
The
Com
mitt
ee n
otes
that
the
com
plai
nant
cont
ests
the
Stat
e pa
rtyrsquos
ass
essm
ent a
s to
the
risk
he w
ould
fa
ce if
retu
rned
to A
fgha
nist
an H
e cla
ims t
hat h
e w
ould
be
at ri
sk o
f per
secu
tion
by th
e Ta
liban
and
the
Afgh
an
auth
oriti
es T
he C
omm
ittee
not
es th
at th
e co
mpl
aina
nt cl
aim
s tha
t the
Sta
te p
arty
has
not
exp
lain
ed w
hy th
e un
cont
este
d cla
im co
ncer
ning
the
viol
ence
he
was
subj
ecte
d to
by
the
Talib
an is
not
rele
vant
und
er a
sylu
m
law
and
that
the
auth
oriti
es fa
iled
to a
sses
s whe
ther
the
Afgh
an a
utho
ritie
s wou
ld b
e ab
le to
pro
tect
him
ag
ains
t pos
sible
repr
isals
from
the
Talib
an A
s to
his c
laim
abo
ut th
e vi
olen
ce in
flict
ed b
y th
e Af
ghan
aut
horit
ies
the
Com
mitt
ee a
lso n
otes
that
the
com
plai
nant
clai
ms t
hat t
he S
tate
par
ty b
ased
its a
sses
smen
t abo
ut th
e cr
edib
ility
of h
is cla
im o
n th
e di
verg
ent s
tate
men
ts h
e ga
ve w
ithin
the
asyl
um p
roce
edin
gs t
hat h
is st
atem
entrsquos
in
cons
isten
cy st
emm
ed fr
om in
adeq
uate
lang
uage
inte
rpre
tatio
n a
nd th
at h
e w
as u
nabl
e to
chec
k it
since
he
is illi
tera
te H
e fu
rthe
r arg
ues t
hat a
lthou
gh h
e re
ques
ted
the
Refu
gee
Appe
als B
oard
for a
spec
ializ
ed m
edica
l ex
amin
atio
n in
ord
er to
verif
y w
heth
er h
e ha
s sig
ns o
f tor
ture
and
show
ed th
e Bo
ard
alle
ged
signs
of t
ortu
re
on h
is ha
nds a
nd o
ne le
g or
foot
the
Boa
rd re
ject
ed h
is re
ques
t for
asy
lum
with
out o
rder
ing
this
exam
inat
ion
rsquo
Para
88
lsquo88
The
Com
mitt
ee o
bser
ves t
hat i
n th
e in
terv
iew
s bef
ore
the
Dani
sh Im
mig
ratio
n Se
rvice
and
the
Refu
gee
Appe
als B
oard
the
com
plai
nant
who
is ill
itera
te p
rovi
ded
inco
nsist
ent s
tate
men
ts a
s to
his p
lace
of o
rigin
the
cir
cum
stan
ces i
n w
hich
he
was
det
aine
d by
the
Afgh
an p
olice
and
his
esca
pe fr
om p
rison
tha
t the
inte
rvie
ws
wer
e he
ld w
ith th
e as
sista
nce
of a
n in
terp
rete
r to
and
from
Pas
hto
and
that
the
com
plai
nant
trie
d to
clar
ify h
is statem
entsfo
llowingqu
estio
nsduringtheBo
ardhe
aringThe
Com
mitteealso
notesth
aton10 Janu
ary2011
anddu
ringtheBo
ardhe
aringof17 Janu
ary2011the
complainantre
questedaspecialized
med
icalexamination
and
argu
ed th
at h
e la
cked
fina
ncia
l mea
ns to
pay
for a
n ex
amin
atio
n hi
mse
lf T
he C
omm
ittee
furt
her o
bser
ves
that
the
com
plai
nant
rsquos al
lega
tion
that
he
show
ed to
the
Boar
d se
quel
ae o
f the
vio
lenc
e in
flict
ed b
y th
e Af
ghan
au
thor
ities
on
his h
ands
and
one
leg
or fo
ot w
as n
ot co
ntes
ted
by th
e St
ate
part
y Th
e Co
mm
ittee
cons
ider
s th
at a
lthou
gh it
is fo
r the
com
plai
nant
to e
stab
lish
a pr
ima
facie
case
to re
ques
t for
asy
lum
it d
oes n
ot e
xem
pt
the
Stat
e pa
rty
from
mak
ing
subs
tant
ial e
ffort
s to
dete
rmin
e w
heth
er th
ere
are
grou
nds f
or b
elie
ving
that
the
com
plai
nant
wou
ld b
e in
dan
ger o
f bei
ng su
bjec
ted
to to
rtur
e if
retu
rned
In
the
circu
mst
ance
s th
e Co
mm
ittee
co
nsid
ers t
hat t
he co
mpl
aina
nt p
rovi
ded
the
Stat
e pa
rtyrsquos
aut
horit
ies w
ith su
fficie
nt m
ater
ial s
uppo
rtin
g hi
s cla
ims o
f hav
ing
been
subj
ecte
d to
tort
ure
inclu
ding
two
med
ical m
emor
anda
to
seek
furt
her i
nves
tigat
ion
on th
e cla
ims t
hrou
gh i
nter
alia
a sp
ecia
lized
med
ical e
xam
inat
ion
The
refo
re t
he C
omm
ittee
conc
lude
s tha
t by
reje
ctin
g th
e co
mpl
aina
ntrsquos
asyl
um re
ques
t with
out s
eeki
ng fu
rthe
r inv
estig
atio
n on
his
claim
s or o
rder
ing
a m
edica
l exa
min
atio
n th
e St
ate
part
y ha
s fai
led
to d
eter
min
e w
heth
er th
ere
are
subs
tant
ial g
roun
ds fo
r be
lievi
ng th
at th
e co
mpl
aina
nt w
ould
be
in d
ange
r of b
eing
subj
ecte
d to
tort
ure
if re
turn
ed A
ccor
ding
ly th
e Co
mm
ittee
conc
lude
s tha
t in
the
circu
mst
ance
s th
e de
porta
tion
of th
e co
mpl
aina
nt to
his
coun
try
of o
rigin
w
ould
cons
titut
e a
viol
atio
n of
art
icle
3 of
the
Conv
entio
nrsquo
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 141
Com
mitt
eeCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
dat
eRe
leva
nce
keyw
ords
key
rele
vant
par
agra
phs
Case
s cite
d
Hum
an
Righ
ts
Com
mitt
ee
Razi
yeh
Reza
ifar
v De
nmar
k
CCPR
C
119
D25
122
014
100
320
17
View
s ado
pted
by
the
Com
mitt
ee u
nder
art
icle
5 (4
) of t
he O
ptio
nal P
roto
col
conc
erni
ng c
omm
unic
atio
n no
251
220
14
Depo
rtat
ion
to It
aly
- Tor
ture
cru
el i
nhum
an o
r deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent o
r pun
ishm
ent
Para
89
lsquo89
The
Com
mitt
ee re
calls
that
Sta
tes p
artie
s sho
uld
give
suffi
cien
t wei
ght t
o th
e re
al a
nd p
erso
nal r
isk
a pe
rson
mig
ht fa
ce if
dep
orte
d and
cons
ider
s tha
t it w
as in
cum
bent
upo
n th
e St
ate
part
y to
und
erta
ke
an in
divi
dual
ized
asse
ssm
ent o
f the
risk
that
the
auth
or a
nd h
er tw
o ch
ildre
n (b
oth
of w
hom
wer
e m
inor
dur
ing
the
asyl
um p
roce
edin
gs) w
ould
face
in It
aly
rath
er th
an re
ly o
n ge
nera
l rep
orts
and
on
the
assu
mpt
ion
that
as t
he a
utho
r had
ben
efite
d fr
om su
bsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
in th
e pa
st s
he w
ould
in
prin
cipl
e b
e en
title
d to
the
sam
e le
vel o
f sub
sidia
ry p
rote
ctio
n to
day
The
Com
mitt
ee c
onsid
ers t
hat t
he
Stat
e pa
rty
faile
d to
take
into
due
con
sider
atio
n th
e sp
ecia
l vul
nera
bilit
y of
the
auth
or a
nd h
er c
hild
ren
N
otw
ithst
andi
ng h
er fo
rmal
ent
itlem
ent t
o su
bsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
in It
aly
the
auth
or w
ho h
as b
een
seve
rely
mist
reat
ed b
y he
r spo
use
face
d gr
eat p
reca
rity
and
was
not
abl
e to
pro
vide
for h
erse
lf an
d he
r ch
ildre
n in
clud
ing
for t
heir
med
ical
nee
ds i
n th
e ab
senc
e of
any
ass
istan
ce fr
om th
e Ita
lian
auth
oriti
es
The
Stat
e pa
rty
has a
lso fa
iled
to se
ek e
ffect
ive
assu
ranc
es fr
om th
e Ita
lian
auth
oriti
es th
at th
e au
thor
an
d he
r tw
o ch
ildre
n w
ho a
re in
a p
artic
ular
ly v
ulne
rabl
e sit
uatio
n an
alog
ous t
o th
at e
ncou
nter
ed b
y th
e au
thor
in Ja
sin v
Den
mar
k (w
hich
also
invo
lved
the
plan
ned
depo
rtat
ion
of a
n un
heal
thy
singl
e m
othe
r w
ith m
inor
chi
ldre
n w
ho h
ad a
lread
y ex
perie
nced
ext
rem
e ha
rdsh
ip a
nd d
estit
utio
n in
Ital
y) w
ould
be
rece
ived
in c
ondi
tions
com
patib
le w
ith th
eir s
tatu
s as a
sylu
m se
eker
s ent
itled
to te
mpo
rary
pro
tect
ion
and
the
guar
ante
es u
nder
art
icle
7 o
f the
Cov
enan
t In
par
ticul
ar t
he S
tate
par
ty fa
iled
to re
ques
t Ita
ly
to u
nder
take
(a) t
o re
new
the
auth
orrsquos
resid
ence
per
mit
and
to is
sue
perm
its to
her
chi
ldre
n a
nd (b
) to
rece
ive
the
auth
or a
nd h
er c
hild
ren
in c
ondi
tions
ada
pted
to th
e ch
ildre
nrsquos a
ge a
nd th
e fa
mily
rsquos vu
lner
able
st
atus
whi
ch w
ould
ena
ble
them
to re
mai
n in
Ital
yrsquo
ECtH
R M
SS v
Bel
gium
an
d Gr
eece
[GC
] no
306
9609
21 Ja
nuary20
11
ECtH
R M
oham
med
Hu
ssei
n an
d O
ther
s v
the
Net
herla
nds
and
Italy
(dec
) no
277
25102 April
2013
ECtH
R Ta
rakh
el
v Sw
itzer
land
[GC]
no
292
171
2
4 Novem
ber2
014
Ms O
bah
Huss
ein
Ahm
ed v
Den
mar
k
no 237
920
147
July
2016
RAA
and
ZM
v De
nmar
k
no 260
820
15
28 Octob
er201
6
142 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Com
mitt
eeCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
dat
eRe
leva
nce
keyw
ords
key
rele
vant
par
agra
phs
Case
s cite
d
X v
Denm
ark
no
200
720
10
26 M
arch201
4
ARJ v
Aus
tral
ia
no 692
199
628 July
1997
X v
Swed
en
no 183
320
08
1 Novem
ber2
011
Lin
v Au
stra
lia
no 195
720
10
21 M
arch201
3
Erro
l Sim
ms v
Jam
aica
no
541
199
33 April
1995
War
da O
sman
Ja
sin v
Den
mar
k
no 236
020
142
2 July
2015
Abdi
lafir
Abu
baka
r Al
i et a
l v D
enm
ark
no
240
920
14
29 M
arch201
6
Pilla
i v C
anad
a
no 176
320
08
25 M
arch201
1
Oba
h Hu
ssei
n Ah
med
v D
enm
ark
no
237
920
147
July
2016
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 143
Com
mitt
eeCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
dat
eRe
leva
nce
keyw
ords
key
rele
vant
par
agra
phs
Case
s cite
d
Com
mitt
ee
on th
e Ri
ghts
of
the
Child
NBF
v S
pain
CRC
C79
D1
120
17
270
920
18
View
s ado
pted
by
the
Com
mitt
ee u
nder
the
Opt
iona
l Pro
toco
l to
the
Conv
entio
n on
the
Righ
ts o
f the
Chi
ld o
n acommun
icatio
nsprocedu
recon
cerningcommun
icatio
nno
112017
Dete
rmin
atio
n of
the
age
of a
n al
lege
d un
acco
mpa
nied
min
or -
Non-
exha
ustio
n of
dom
estic
rem
edie
s ab
use
of
the
right
of s
ubm
issio
n la
ck o
f sub
stan
tiatio
n of
the
com
plai
nt
Para
12
6
lsquo12
6 T
he S
tate
par
ty h
as ci
ted
the
case
of M
EB
v S
pain
as a
pre
cede
nt fo
r rel
ying
on
X-ra
y ev
iden
ce b
ased
on
the
Greu
lich
and
Pyle
atla
s Th
e Co
mm
ittee
not
es h
owev
er t
hat t
here
is a
mpl
e in
form
atio
n in
the
file
to
sugg
est t
hat t
his m
etho
d la
cks p
recis
ion
and
has a
wid
e m
argi
n of
err
or a
nd is
ther
efor
e no
t sui
tabl
e fo
r use
as
the
sole
met
hod
for d
eter
min
ing
the
chro
nolo
gica
l age
of a
youn
g pe
rson
who
clai
ms t
o be
a m
inor
rsquo
ECtH
R A
hmad
e v
Gree
cen
o 50
52009
25
Sep
tembe
r201
2
MEB
v S
pain
no
9201
72 Ju
ne201
7
RL v
Spa
inn
o 18
201
7
25 Ja
nuary20
18
Com
mitt
ee
Agai
nst
Tort
ure
Adam
Har
un
v Sw
itzer
land
CAT
C65
D7
582
016
061
220
18
Deci
sion
adop
ted
by th
e Co
mm
ittee
und
er a
rtic
le 2
2 of
the
Conv
entio
n c
once
rnin
g co
mm
unic
atio
n no
758
201
6
Depo
rtat
ion
to It
aly
- Fai
lure
to su
ffici
ently
subs
tant
iate
cla
ims
inad
miss
ibili
ty ra
tione
mat
eria
e - R
isk o
f to
rtur
e ri
ght t
o re
dres
s c
ruel
inh
uman
or d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t or p
unish
men
t
Para
91
1
lsquo91
1 T
he C
omm
ittee
also
not
es th
at th
e St
ate
part
y w
ithou
t hav
ing
anal
ysed
the
com
plai
nant
rsquos ex
perie
nce
in It
aly
to d
ate
sim
ply
stat
ed th
at It
aly
had
alre
ady
agre
ed to
read
mit
him
on
thre
e se
para
te
occa
sions
and
con
sider
ed th
at i
f nee
d be
the
com
plai
nant
cou
ld fi
le a
com
plai
nt a
gain
st th
e re
ceiv
ing
Stat
e in
the
even
t of v
iola
tion
of h
is rig
hts
In a
dditi
on t
he C
omm
ittee
not
es th
at a
t no
time
did
the
Stat
e pa
rty
take
acc
ount
of t
he fa
ct th
at It
aly
had
faile
d to
del
iver
on
the
assu
ranc
es th
at it
had
giv
en to
N
orw
ay w
hen
the
com
plai
nant
retu
rned
to th
e co
untr
y in
201
2 an
d th
at it
had
not
take
n an
y m
easu
res
to g
uara
ntee
him
acc
ess t
o re
habi
litat
ion
serv
ices
that
are
tailo
red
to h
is ne
eds
whi
ch w
ould
allo
w
him
to e
xerc
ise h
is rig
ht to
reha
bilit
atio
n as
a v
ictim
of t
ortu
re I
n lig
ht o
f the
fore
goin
g th
e Co
mm
ittee
co
nsid
ers t
hat t
he S
tate
par
ty h
as n
ot e
xam
ined
in a
n in
divi
dual
ized
and
suffi
cien
tly th
orou
gh m
anne
r the
co
mpl
aina
ntrsquos
pers
onal
exp
erie
nce
as a
vic
tim o
f tor
ture
and
the
fore
seea
ble
cons
eque
nces
of h
is fo
rced
re
turn
to It
aly
The
Com
mitt
ee is
ther
efor
e of
the
view
that
the
depo
rtat
ion
of th
e co
mpl
aina
nt to
Ital
y w
ould
con
stitu
te a
vio
latio
n of
art
icle
3 o
f the
Con
vent
ion
rsquo
ECtH
R Ta
rakh
el
v Sw
itzer
land
[GC]
no
292
171
2
4 Novem
ber2
014
ECtH
R N
v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m [G
C]
no 265
650527 May
2008
ECtH
R D
v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
mn
o 30
24096
2 May199
7
ECtH
R M
SS v
Bel
gium
an
d Gr
eece
[GC
] no
306
9609
21 Ja
nuary20
11
ECtH
R M
oham
med
Hu
ssei
n an
d O
ther
s v
the
Net
herla
nds
and
Italy
(dec
) no
277
25102 April
2013
144 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Com
mitt
eeCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
dat
eRe
leva
nce
keyw
ords
key
rele
vant
par
agra
phs
Case
s cite
d
ECtH
R A
S v
Switz
erla
nd
no 393
501330 June
20
15
ECtH
R N
aiumlt-L
iman
v
Switz
erla
nd
no 513
570721 June
20
16
ECtH
R P
apos
hvili
v
Belg
ium
no
417
3810
13 Decem
ber2
016
ECtH
R S
aadi
v It
aly
[GC]n
o 37
20106
28
Feb
ruary20
08
ECtH
R R
amzy
v
the
Net
herla
nds
no
254
240520 July
2010
CJEU
CK
and
Oth
ers
v Re
publ
ika
Slov
enija
C-
578
16 P
PU
16 Feb
ruary20
17
Hum
an R
ight
s Co
mm
ittee
W
arda
Osm
an
Jasin
v D
enm
ark
no
236
020
142
2 July
2015
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 145
Com
mitt
eeCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
dat
eRe
leva
nce
keyw
ords
key
rele
vant
par
agra
phs
Case
s cite
d
MM
K v
Swed
en
22120
023
May200
5
YGH
et a
l v A
ustr
alia
no
434
201
0
14 Novem
ber2
013
JB v
Sw
itzer
land
no
721
201
5
17 Novem
ber2
017
AN v
Sw
itzer
land
no
742
201
63Aug
ust
2018
146 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Case law websites for European institutions and Member StatesBelow is a list of the main websites with case-law on asylum and migration law for European institutions and EU Member States
bull Court of Justice of the European Union httpcuriaeuropaeujurisrecherchejsflanguage=enbull European Court of Human Rights httpshudocechrcoeintengbull EASO Information and Documentation System on Case Law httpscaselaweasoeuropaeuPages
defaultaspxbull UNHCR Refworld httpswwwrefworldorgcgi-bintexisvtxrwmain with advanced search at https
wwwrefworldorgcgi-bintexisvtxrwmainpage=searchampadvsearch=yampprocess=nbull Jurisprudence of the UN human rights bodies httpsjurisohchrorgsearchDocumentsbull European Council on Refugees and Exiles European Database of Asylum Law httpswww
asylumlawdatabaseeuenbull The European Commission maintains a list of links to national case-law sites at httpsbetae-justice
europaeu13ENnational_case_law
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU
In personAll over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres You can find the address of the centre nearest you at httpeuropaeucontact
On the phone or by emailEurope Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union You can contact this service ndash by freephone 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls)ndash at the following standard number +32 22999696 orndash by email via httpeuropaeucontact
FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU
OnlineInformation about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website at httpeuropaeu
EU publicationsYou can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop at httppublicationseuropaeu eubookshop Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see httpeuropaeucontact)
EU law and related documentsFor access to legal information from the EU including all EU law since 1952 in all the official language versions go to EUR-Lex at httpeur-lexeuropaeu
Open data from the EUThe EU Open Data Portal (httpdataeuropaeueuodp) provides access to datasets from the EU Data can be downloaded and reused for free both for commercial and non-commercial purposes
Compilation of jurisprudence
Vulnerability in the context of applications
for international protection
Produced by IARMJ-Europe under contract to EASO
2021
EASO Professional Development Series for members of courts and tribunals
copy European Asylum Support Office 2021Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledgedFor any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the copyright of EASO permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders
Print ISBN 978-92-9476-631-1 doi102847903590 BZ-03-19-225-EN-C
PDF ISBN 978-92-9476-630-4 doi10284763941 BZ-03-19-225-EN-N
Manuscript completed in August 2020
Neither the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) nor any person acting on behalf of EASO is responsible for the use that might be made of the following information
Luxembourg Publications Office of the European Union 2021
Cover illustration baldyrgan copy Shutterstock
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 3
European Asylum Support OfficeEASO is an agency of the European Union that plays a key role in the concrete development of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) It was established with the aim of enhancing practical cooperation on asylum matters and helping Member States fulfil their European and international obligations to give protection to people in need
Article 6 of the EASO founding Regulation (1) (hereinafter the Regulation) specifies that the Agency shall establish and develop training available to members of courts and tribunals in the Member States For this purpose EASO shall take advantage of the expertise of academic institutions and other relevant organisations and take into account the Unionrsquos existing cooperation in the field with full respect to the independence of national courts and tribunals
International Association of Refugee and Migration JudgesThe International Association of Refugee and Migration Judges (IARMJ) (2) is a transnational non-profit association that seeks to foster recognition that protection from persecution on account of race religion nationality membership in a particular social group or political opinion is an individual right established under international law and that the determination of refugee status and its cessation should be subject to the rule of law Since the foundation of the association in 1997 it has been heavily involved in the training of judges around the world dealing with asylum cases The European Chapter of the IARMJ (IARMJ-Europe) is the regional representative body for judges within Europe One of the Chapterrsquos specific objectives under its Constitution is lsquoto enhance knowledge and skills and to exchange views and experiences of judges on all matters concerning the application and functioning of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS)rsquo
ContributorsThis compilation of jurisprudence has been developed by a process with two components an Editorial team (ET) of judges and tribunal members with overall responsibility for the final product and two researchers responsible for drafting
In order to ensure the integrity of the principle of judicial independence and that the EASO Professional development series for members of courts and tribunals is developed and delivered under judicial guidance an ET composed of serving judges and tribunal members with extensive experience and expertise in the field of asylum law was selected under the auspices of a Joint monitoring group (JMG) The JMG is composed of representatives of the contracting parties EASO and IARMJ-Europe The ET reviewed drafts gave detailed instructions to the drafting team drafted amendments and was the final decision-making body as to the scope structure content and design of the work The work of the ET was undertaken through regular electronictelephonic communication
Editorial team of judges and tribunal membersThe judges and tribunal members of the ET for this compilation of jurisprudence were Mona Aldestam (Sweden Co-Chair) Michael Hoppe (Germany Co-Chair) Johan Berg (Norway) Katelijne Declerck (Belgium) Nadine Finch (UK) Florence Malvasio (France) Melanie Plimmer (UK) and Boštjan Zalar (Slovenia) The ET was supported and assisted in its task by Project Coordination Manager Clara Odofin
(1) Regulation(EU)No4392010oftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilof19 May2010establishingaEuropeanAsylumSupportOffice [2010] OJ L 13211
(2) Formerly known as the International Association of Refugee Law Judges (IARLJ)
4 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
DraftersClaire Thomas (consultant) was the primary drafter along with Frances Nicholson (consultant) who provided editorial support
AcknowledgementsComments on the draft were received from Lars Bay Larsen a judge and Yann Laurans a legal secretary both of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and from the judge Jolien Schukking and the lawyers Elise Russcher and Agnes van Steijn of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in their personal capacities
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) also expressed its views on the draft text
Comments were also received from the following EASO Court and Tribunal Network members and the EASO Consultative Forum European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights Anders Bengtsson (legal expert Administrative Court in Gothenburg Sweden) Volker Ellenberger (President of the Higher Administrative Court of Baden-Wuumlrttemberg Germany) Jonas Saumlfwenberg (legal expert Administrative Court in Gothenburg Sweden) and Hugo Storey (Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) UK)
All these comments were taken into consideration by the ET in finalising the text for publication The members of the ET and EASO are grateful to all those who have made comments which have been very helpful in finalising this Compilation
This compilation of jurisprudence will be updated as necessary by EASO in accordance with the methodology for the EASO Professional development series for members of courts and tribunals
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 5
Compilation of jurisprudence ndash explanatory noteThe purpose of this Compilation of Jurisprudence is to be an accompanying resource to the Judicial analysis and to provide courts and tribunals in Member States with a helpful aid when hearing appeals or conducting reviews of decisions on applications concerning vulnerability
The cases in this Compilation are confined to those which have been named within the main body of text of the Judicial analysis Included in this Compilation is jurisprudence from
mdash European courts that is the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human rights (ECtHR)
mdash United Nations that is the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) the Committee Against Torture (CAT) and the Human Rights Committee (HRC)
Within these sections cases are listed in date order from the oldest to the most recent
All cases cited or otherwise mentioned in the footnotes of the Judicial analysis included all National cases can be found in Appendix B Primary Sources of the Judicial Analysis Further information on all cases can be found through the hyperlinks provided or via the list of websites provided at the end of this Compilation
6 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
t of J
ustic
e of
the
Euro
pean
Uni
on (C
JEU
)
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
(Gra
nd
Cham
ber
[GC]
)
Elga
faji
v St
aats
secr
etar
is v
an
Just
itie
C-46
507
EUC
200
994
170
220
09
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
15(
c) o
f Co
uncilD
irective20
0483EC
of2
9 Ap
ril200
4on
minim
umstan
dardsforth
equ
alificatio
nan
dstatusof
third
cou
ntry
nat
iona
ls or
stat
eles
s per
sons
as r
efug
ees o
r as p
erso
ns w
ho o
ther
wise
nee
d in
tern
atio
nal
prot
ectio
n an
d th
e co
nten
t of t
he p
rote
ctio
n gr
ante
d in
con
junc
tion
with
Art
icle
2(e
) of t
hat d
irect
ive
Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3EC
ndash M
inim
um st
anda
rds f
or d
eter
min
ing
who
qua
lifie
s for
refu
gee
stat
us o
r for
su
bsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
stat
us ndash
Per
son
elig
ible
for s
ubsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
ndash Ar
ticle
2(e
) ndash R
eal r
isk o
f suf
ferin
g se
rious
har
m ndash
Art
icle
15(
c) ndash
Ser
ious
and
indi
vidu
al th
reat
to a
civ
ilian
rsquos lif
e or
per
son
by re
ason
of
indi
scrim
inat
e vi
olen
ce in
situ
atio
ns o
f arm
ed c
onfli
ct
Para
s 3
8-39
lsquo38
The
exc
eptio
nal n
atur
e of
that
situ
atio
n is
also
con
firm
ed b
y th
e fa
ct th
at th
e re
leva
nt p
rote
ctio
n is
subs
idia
ry a
nd b
y th
e br
oad
logi
c of
Art
icle
15
of th
e Di
rect
ive
as t
he h
arm
def
ined
in p
arag
raph
s (a
) and
(b) o
f tha
t art
icle
requ
ires a
cle
ar d
egre
e of
indi
vidu
alisa
tion
Whi
le it
is a
dmitt
edly
true
that
co
llect
ive
fact
ors p
lay
a sig
nific
ant r
ole
in th
e ap
plic
atio
n of
Art
icle
15(
c) o
f the
Dire
ctiv
e in
that
the
pers
on c
once
rned
bel
ongs
lik
e ot
her p
eopl
e to
a c
ircle
of p
oten
tial v
ictim
s of i
ndisc
rimin
ate
viol
ence
in
situa
tions
of i
nter
natio
nal o
r int
erna
l arm
ed c
onfli
ct i
t is n
ever
thel
ess t
he c
ase
that
that
pro
visio
n m
ust
be su
bjec
t to
a co
here
nt in
terp
reta
tion
in re
latio
n to
the
othe
r tw
o sit
uatio
ns re
ferr
ed to
in A
rtic
le 1
5 of
th
e Di
rect
ive
and
mus
t th
eref
ore
be
inte
rpre
ted
by c
lose
refe
renc
e to
that
indi
vidu
alisa
tion
lsquo39
In
that
rega
rd t
he m
ore
the
appl
ican
t is a
ble
to sh
ow th
at h
e is
spec
ifica
lly a
ffect
ed b
y re
ason
of
fact
ors p
artic
ular
to h
is pe
rson
al c
ircum
stan
ces
the
low
er th
e le
vel o
f ind
iscrim
inat
e vi
olen
ce re
quire
d fo
r hi
m to
be
elig
ible
for s
ubsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
rsquo
Para
42
lsquo42
Acco
rdin
g to
sett
led
case
-law
in a
pply
ing
natio
nal l
aw w
heth
er th
e pr
ovisi
ons i
n qu
estio
n w
ere
adop
ted
befo
re o
r afte
r the
dire
ctiv
e th
e na
tiona
l cou
rt c
alle
d up
on to
inte
rpre
t it i
s req
uire
d to
do
so a
s fa
r as p
ossib
le i
n th
e lig
ht o
f the
wor
ding
and
the
purp
ose
of th
e di
rect
ive
in o
rder
to a
chie
ve th
e re
sult
purs
ued
by th
e la
tter
and
ther
eby
com
ply
with
the
third
par
agra
ph o
f Art
icle
249
EC
rsquo
Mar
le a
sing
C-1
068
9
13 Novem
ber1
990
Com
mun
e de
Mes
quer
C-1880724 June
2008
NA v
Uni
ted
King
dom
C-1151530 June
2016
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 7
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
Sam
ba D
iouf
v M
inist
re
du T
rava
il d
e lrsquoE
mpl
oi e
t de
lrsquoIm
mig
ratio
n
C-69
10
EUC
201
152
4
280
720
11
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
39
of C
ounc
il Directive20
0585EC
of1
Decem
ber2
005on
minim
umstan
dardso
nproced
uresin
Mem
berS
tatesfor
gran
ting
and
with
draw
ing
refu
gee
stat
us
Dire
ctiv
e 20
058
5EC
ndash M
inim
um st
anda
rds o
n pr
oced
ures
in M
embe
r Sta
tes f
or g
rant
ing
and
with
draw
ing
refu
gee
stat
us ndash
lsquoDec
ision
take
n on
[the
] app
licat
ion
for a
sylu
mrsquo w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of
Artic
le 3
9 of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
058
5 ndash
Appl
icat
ion
by a
third
cou
ntry
nat
iona
l for
refu
gee
stat
us ndash
Fai
lure
to
pro
vide
reas
ons j
ustif
ying
the
gran
t of i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n ndash
Appl
icat
ion
reje
cted
und
er a
n ac
cele
rate
d pr
oced
ure
ndash N
o re
med
y ag
ains
t the
dec
ision
to d
eal w
ith th
e ap
plic
atio
n un
der a
n ac
cele
rate
d pr
oced
ure
ndash Ri
ght t
o ef
fect
ive
judi
cial
revi
ew
Para
s 6
5-68
lsquo65
In th
at re
gard
it m
ust b
e st
ated
at t
he o
utse
t tha
t the
diff
eren
ces t
hat e
xist
in
the
natio
nal r
ules
be
twee
n th
e ac
cele
rate
d pr
oced
ure
and
the
ordi
nary
pro
cedu
re t
he e
ffect
of w
hich
is th
at th
e tim
e-lim
it fo
r brin
ging
an
actio
n is
shor
tene
d an
d th
at th
ere
is on
ly o
ne le
vel o
f jur
isdic
tion
are
con
nect
ed w
ith th
e na
ture
of t
he p
roce
dure
put
in p
lace
The
pro
visio
ns a
t iss
ue in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s are
inte
nded
to
ensu
re th
at u
nfou
nded
or i
nadm
issib
le a
pplic
atio
ns fo
r asy
lum
are
pro
cess
ed m
ore
quic
kly
in o
rder
that
ap
plic
atio
ns su
bmitt
ed b
y pe
rson
s who
hav
e go
od g
roun
ds fo
r ben
efiti
ng fr
om re
fuge
e st
atus
may
be
proc
esse
d m
ore
effic
ient
ly
lsquo66
As r
egar
ds th
e fa
ct th
at th
e tim
e-lim
it fo
r brin
ging
an
actio
n is
15 d
ays i
n th
e ca
se o
f an
acce
lera
ted
proc
edur
e w
hilst
it is
1 m
onth
in th
e ca
se o
f a d
ecisi
on a
dopt
ed u
nder
the
ordi
nary
pro
cedu
re t
he
impo
rtan
t poi
nt a
s the
Adv
ocat
e Ge
nera
l has
stat
ed in
poi
nt 6
3 of
his
Opi
nion
is t
hat t
he p
erio
d pr
escr
ibed
mus
t be
suffi
cien
t in
prac
tical
term
s to
enab
le th
e ap
plic
ant t
o pr
epar
e an
d br
ing
an e
ffect
ive
actio
n
lsquo67
With
rega
rd to
abb
revi
ated
pro
cedu
res
a 1
5-da
y tim
e lim
it fo
r brin
ging
an
actio
n do
es n
ot se
em
gene
rally
to
be in
suffi
cien
t in
prac
tical
term
s to
prep
are
and
brin
g an
effe
ctiv
e ac
tion
and
appe
ars
reas
onab
le a
nd p
ropo
rtio
nate
in re
latio
n to
the
right
s and
inte
rest
s inv
olve
d
lsquo68
It is
how
ever
for
the
natio
nal c
ourt
to d
eter
min
e ndash
shou
ld th
at ti
me-
limit
prov
e in
a g
iven
situ
atio
n
to b
e in
suffi
cien
t in
view
of t
he c
ircum
stan
ces ndash
whe
ther
that
ele
men
t is s
uch
as to
just
ify o
n its
ow
n
upho
ldin
g th
e ac
tion
brou
ght i
ndire
ctly
aga
inst
the
deci
sion
to e
xam
ine
the
appl
icat
ion
for a
sylu
m u
nder
an
acc
eler
ated
pro
cedu
re s
o th
at i
n up
hold
ing
the
actio
n th
e na
tiona
l cou
rt w
ould
ord
er th
at th
e ap
plic
atio
n be
exa
min
ed u
nder
the
ordi
nary
pro
cedu
rersquo
DEB
C-2
790
9
22 Decem
ber2
010
Char
try
C-4
570
9
1 March2011
Safa
lero
C-1
301
11 Sep
tembe
r2003
Wils
on C
-506
04
19 Sep
tembe
r2006
Ange
lidak
i and
Oth
ers
join
ed ca
ses C
-378
07
to
3800723 Ap
ril2009
Impa
ct C
-268
06
15 April2
008
8 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
[GC]
NS
v Se
cret
ary
of
Stat
e fo
r the
Hom
e De
part
men
t and
M
E an
d O
ther
s v
Refu
gee
Appl
icat
ions
Co
mm
issi
oner
and
M
inist
er fo
r Jus
tice
Eq
ualit
y an
d La
w R
efor
m
C-41
110
and
C-4
931
0
EUC
201
186
5
211
220
11
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n fi
rst
of A
rtic
le 3
(2) o
f Co
uncilR
egulation(EC)No34
320
03of1
8 Februa
ry200
3establish
ingthecrite
riaand
mecha
nism
sfor
dete
rmin
ing
the
Mem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
le fo
r exa
min
ing
an a
sylu
m a
pplic
atio
n lo
dged
in o
ne o
f the
M
embe
r Sta
tes b
y a
third
-cou
ntry
nat
iona
l and
sec
ond
the
fund
amen
tal r
ight
s of t
he E
urop
ean
Uni
on
and
third
Pro
toco
l (N
o 30
) on
the
appl
icat
ion
of th
e Ch
arte
r to
Pola
nd a
nd to
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
Euro
pean
Uni
on la
w ndash
Prin
cipl
es ndash
Fun
dam
enta
l rig
hts ndash
Impl
emen
tatio
n of
Eur
opea
n U
nion
law
ndash
Proh
ibiti
on o
f inh
uman
or d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t ndash C
omm
on E
urop
ean
Asyl
um S
yste
m ndash
Reg
ulat
ion
(EC)
N
o 34
320
03 ndash
Con
cept
of lsquo
safe
cou
ntrie
srsquo ndash
Tra
nsfe
r of a
n as
ylum
seek
er to
the
Mem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
le
ndash O
blig
atio
n ndash
Rebu
ttab
le p
resu
mpt
ion
of c
ompl
ianc
e b
y th
at M
embe
r Sta
te w
ith fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts
Para
77
lsquo77
Acc
ordi
ng to
sett
led
case
-law
the
Mem
ber S
tate
s mus
t not
onl
y in
terp
ret t
heir
natio
nal l
aw in
a
man
ner c
onsis
tent
with
Eur
opea
n U
nion
law
but
also
mak
e su
re th
ey d
o no
t rel
y on
an
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
an
inst
rum
ent o
f sec
onda
ry le
gisla
tion
whi
ch w
ould
be
in c
onfli
ct w
ith th
e fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts p
rote
cted
by
the
Euro
pean
Uni
on le
gal o
rder
or w
ith th
e ot
her g
ener
al p
rinci
ples
of E
urop
ean
Uni
on la
wrsquo
Para
94
lsquo94
It fo
llow
s fro
m th
e fo
rego
ing
that
in si
tuat
ions
such
as t
hat a
t iss
ue in
the
case
s in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s to
ens
ure
com
plia
nce
by th
e Eu
rope
an U
nion
and
its M
embe
r Sta
tes w
ith th
eir o
blig
atio
ns
conc
erni
ng th
e pr
otec
tion
of th
e fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts o
f asy
lum
seek
ers
the
Mem
ber S
tate
s in
clud
ing
the
natio
nal c
ourt
s m
ay n
ot tr
ansf
er a
n as
ylum
seek
er to
the
lsquoMem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
lersquo w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of
Reg
ulat
ion
No
343
2003
whe
re th
ey c
anno
t be
unaw
are
that
syst
emic
def
icie
ncie
s in
the
asyl
um
proc
edur
e an
d in
the
rece
ptio
n co
nditi
ons o
f asy
lum
seek
ers i
n th
at M
embe
r Sta
te a
mou
nt to
subs
tant
ial
grou
nds f
or b
elie
ving
that
the
asyl
um se
eker
wou
ld fa
ce a
real
risk
of b
eing
subj
ecte
d to
inhu
man
or
degr
adin
g tr
eatm
ent w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
errsquo
Para
98
lsquo98
The
Mem
ber S
tate
in w
hich
the
asyl
um se
eker
is p
rese
nt m
ust
how
ever
ens
ure
that
it d
oes
not w
orse
n a
situa
tion
whe
re th
e fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts o
f tha
t app
lican
t hav
e be
en in
frin
ged
by u
sing
a pr
oced
ure
for d
eter
min
ing
the
Mem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
le w
hich
take
s an
unre
ason
able
leng
th o
f tim
e
If ne
cess
ary
that
Mem
ber S
tate
mus
t its
elf e
xam
ine
the
appl
icat
ion
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith th
e pr
oced
ure
laid
do
wn
in A
rtic
le 3
(2) o
f Reg
ulat
ion
No
343
2003
rsquo
Wac
haufC-58813 July
1989
Chak
roun
C-5
780
8
4 March2010
McB
C-4
001
0
5 Octob
er2010
ERTC-2608918 June
19
91
Sala
hadi
n Ab
dulla
and
O
ther
s jo
ined
case
s C-
175
08 C
-176
08
C-
178
08 a
nd C
-179
08
2 March2010
Bolb
olC-310917 June
20
10
Lindq
vist
C-1
010
1
6 No
vembe
r2003
Ord
re d
es b
arre
aux
franc
opho
nes e
t ge
rman
opho
ne a
nd
Oth
ers
C-30
505
26 Ju
ne2007
ECtH
R M
SS v
Bel
gium
an
d Gr
eece
[GC
] no
306960921 Janu
ary
2011
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 9
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
99
lsquo99
It fo
llow
s fro
m a
ll of
the
fore
goin
g co
nsid
erat
ions
that
as s
tate
d by
the
Advo
cate
Gen
eral
in
para
grap
h 13
1 of
her
Opi
nion
an
appl
icat
ion
of R
egul
atio
n N
o 34
320
03 o
n th
e ba
sis o
f the
con
clus
ive
pres
umpt
ion
that
the
asyl
um se
eker
rsquos fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts w
ill b
e ob
serv
ed in
the
Mem
ber S
tate
prim
arily
re
spon
sible
for h
is ap
plic
atio
n is
inco
mpa
tible
with
the
duty
of t
he M
embe
r Sta
tes t
o in
terp
ret a
nd a
pply
Re
gula
tion
No
343
2003
in a
man
ner c
onsis
tent
with
fund
amen
tal r
ight
srsquo
ECtH
R K
RS v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(dec
) no
3273308
2 De
cembe
r2008
CJEU
Bund
esre
publ
ik
Deut
schl
and
v Y
and
Z
C-71
11
and
C-99
11
EUC
201
251
8
050
920
12
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
s 2(c
) and
9(1)(a)o
fCou
ncilDirective20
0483EC
of2
9 Ap
ril200
4on
minim
umstan
dardsforth
equ
alificatio
nan
d st
atus
of t
hird
cou
ntry
nat
iona
ls or
Sta
tele
ss p
erso
ns a
s ref
ugee
s or a
s per
sons
who
oth
erw
ise n
eed
inte
rnat
iona
l pro
tect
ion
and
the
cont
ent o
f the
pro
tect
ion
gran
ted
Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3EC
ndash M
inim
um st
anda
rds f
or d
eter
min
ing
who
qua
lifie
s for
refu
gee
stat
us o
r for
su
bsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
stat
us ndash
Cla
ssifi
catio
n as
a lsquor
efug
eersquondash
Def
initi
on o
f lsquoac
ts o
f per
secu
tionrsquo
ndashndash
Relig
ion
as g
roun
d fo
r per
secu
tion
ndash Ac
ts b
y th
e Pa
kist
ani a
utho
ritie
s des
igne
d to
pro
hibi
t the
man
ifest
atio
n of
a
pers
onrsquos
relig
ion
in p
ublic
ndash w
ell-f
ound
ed fe
ar o
f bei
ng p
erse
cute
d on
acc
ount
of h
is re
ligio
n
Para
70
lsquo70
In a
sses
sing
such
a ri
sk t
he c
ompe
tent
aut
horit
ies m
ust t
ake
acco
unt o
f a n
umbe
r of f
acto
rs b
oth
obje
ctiv
e an
d su
bjec
tive
The
subj
ectiv
e ci
rcum
stan
ce th
at th
e ob
serv
ance
of a
cer
tain
relig
ious
pra
ctic
e in
pub
lic w
hich
is su
bjec
t to
the
rest
rictio
ns a
t iss
ue i
s of p
artic
ular
impo
rtan
ce to
the
pers
on c
once
rned
in
ord
er to
pre
serv
e hi
s rel
igio
us id
entit
y is
a re
leva
nt fa
ctor
to b
e ta
ken
into
acc
ount
in d
eter
min
ing
the
leve
l of r
isk to
whi
ch th
e ap
plic
ant w
ill b
e ex
pose
d in
his
coun
try
of o
rigin
on
acco
unt o
f his
relig
ion
eve
n if
the
obse
rvan
ce o
f suc
h a
relig
ious
pra
ctic
e do
es n
ot c
onst
itute
a c
ore
elem
ent o
f fai
th fo
r the
relig
ious
co
mm
unity
con
cern
edrsquo
Sala
hadi
n Ab
dulla
and
O
ther
s jo
ined
Cas
es
C-17
508
C-1
760
8
C-17
808
and
C-1
790
8
2 March2010
Bolb
olC-310917 June
20
10
NS v
Sec
reta
ry o
f St
ate
for t
he H
ome
Depa
rtm
ent a
nd
ME
and
Oth
ers
v Re
fuge
e Ap
plica
tions
Co
mm
issio
ner a
nd
Min
ister
for J
ustic
e
Equa
lity
and
Law
Re
form
joi
ned
Case
s C-
411
10 a
nd C
-493
10
21 Decem
ber2
011
10 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
Cim
ade
and
Gro
upe
drsquoin
form
atio
n et
de
sout
ien
des i
mm
igreacute
s (G
ISTI
) v M
inist
re d
e lrsquoi
nteacuter
ieur
de
lrsquoout
re-
mer
des
colle
ctiv
iteacutes
terr
itoria
les e
t de
lrsquoim
mig
ratio
n
C-17
911
EUC
201
259
4
270
920
12
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Cou
ncil
Dire
ctiv
e 20
039ECof27 Janu
ary20
03laying
dow
nminim
umstan
dardsforth
ereceptionofasylumse
ekersinthe
Mem
ber S
tate
s
Appl
icat
ions
for a
sylu
m ndash
Dire
ctiv
e 20
039
EC
ndash M
inim
um st
anda
rds f
or th
e re
cept
ion
of a
sylu
m se
eker
s in
the
Mem
ber S
tate
s ndash R
egul
atio
n (E
C) N
o 34
320
03 ndash
Obl
igat
ion
to g
uara
ntee
asy
lum
seek
ers m
inim
um
rece
ptio
n co
nditi
ons d
urin
g th
e pr
oced
ure
of ta
king
cha
rge
or ta
king
bac
k by
the
resp
onsib
le M
embe
r St
ate
ndash De
term
inin
g th
e M
embe
r Sta
te o
blig
ed to
ass
ume
the
finan
cial
bur
den
of th
e m
inim
um c
ondi
tions
Para
52
lsquo52
With
rega
rd to
the
dura
tion
of th
e ob
ligat
ion
to g
rant
the
min
imum
rece
ptio
n co
nditi
ons
it sh
ould
be
reca
lled
firs
t as
was
stat
ed in
par
agra
phs 3
6 an
d 37
abo
ve t
hat t
he p
erso
nal s
cope
of D
irect
ive
2003
9 e
ncom
pass
es a
ny a
sylu
m se
eker
who
has
lodg
ed a
n ap
plic
atio
n fo
r asy
lum
for t
he fi
rst t
ime
with
a
Mem
ber S
tate
rsquo
Para
54
lsquo54
Thi
rd i
t fol
low
s fro
m A
rtic
les 1
7 to
19
of R
egul
atio
n N
o 34
320
03 th
at th
e m
ere
requ
est b
y a
Mem
ber S
tate
in re
ceip
t of a
n ap
plic
atio
n fo
r asy
lum
for t
he ta
king
cha
rge
of th
e ap
plic
ant c
once
rned
by
ano
ther
Mem
ber S
tate
doe
s not
brin
g th
e ex
amin
atio
n of
the
appl
icat
ion
for a
sylu
m b
y th
e re
ques
ting
Mem
ber S
tate
to a
n en
d E
ven
whe
re th
e re
ques
ted
Mem
ber S
tate
acc
epts
that
taki
ng c
harg
e th
e fa
ct
neve
rthe
less
rem
ains
that
in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith A
rtic
le 1
9(4)
of R
egul
atio
n N
o 34
320
03 t
he re
spon
sibili
ty
for t
he e
xam
inat
ion
of th
e ap
plic
atio
n fo
r asy
lum
falls
to th
e M
embe
r Sta
te w
ith w
hich
that
app
licat
ion
was
lodg
ed i
f the
tran
sfer
is n
ot c
arrie
d ou
t with
in th
e six
-mon
th p
erio
d F
urth
erm
ore
as s
tate
d in
pa
ragr
aph
44 a
bove
whe
re th
e re
ques
ted
Mem
ber S
tate
repl
ies i
n th
e ne
gativ
e th
e le
gisla
tion
in
ques
tion
prov
ides
onl
y fo
r a v
olun
tary
con
cilia
tion
proc
edur
e an
d in
such
a c
ase
it c
anno
t be
excl
uded
th
at th
e as
ylum
seek
er w
ill re
mai
n in
the
terr
itory
of t
he re
ques
ting
Mem
ber S
tate
rsquo
Para
56
lsquo56
In a
dditi
on f
urth
er to
the
gene
ral s
chem
e an
d pu
rpos
e of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
039
and
the
obse
rvan
ce o
f fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts
in p
artic
ular
the
requ
irem
ents
of A
rtic
le 1
of t
he C
hart
er u
nder
whi
ch h
uman
dig
nity
m
ust b
e re
spec
ted
and
prot
ecte
d th
e as
ylum
seek
er m
ay n
ot a
s sta
ted
in p
arag
raph
s 41
to 4
4 ab
ove
be
depr
ived
ndash e
ven
for a
tem
pora
ry p
erio
d of
tim
e af
ter t
he m
akin
g of
the
appl
icat
ion
for a
sylu
m a
nd b
efor
e be
ing
actu
ally
tran
sfer
red
to th
e re
spon
sible
Mem
ber S
tate
ndash o
f the
pro
tect
ion
of th
e m
inim
um st
anda
rds
laid
dow
n by
that
dire
ctiv
ersquo
None
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 11
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
61
lsquo61
Acc
ordi
ngly
the
answ
er to
the
seco
nd q
uest
ion
is th
at th
e ob
ligat
ion
on a
Mem
ber S
tate
in re
ceip
t of
an
appl
icat
ion
for a
sylu
m to
gra
nt th
e m
inim
um re
cept
ion
cond
ition
s lai
d do
wn
in D
irect
ive
2003
9
to a
n as
ylum
seek
er in
resp
ect o
f who
m it
dec
ides
und
er R
egul
atio
n N
o 34
320
03 t
o ca
ll up
on a
noth
er
Mem
ber S
tate
as t
he M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
for e
xam
inin
g hi
s app
licat
ion
for a
sylu
m t
o ta
ke c
harg
e of
or t
ake
back
that
app
lican
t ce
ases
whe
n th
at sa
me
appl
ican
t is a
ctua
lly tr
ansf
erre
d by
the
requ
estin
g M
embe
r Sta
te a
nd th
e fin
anci
al b
urde
n of
gra
ntin
g th
ose
min
imum
con
ditio
ns is
to b
e as
sum
ed b
y th
at
requ
estin
g M
embe
r Sta
te w
hich
is su
bjec
t to
that
obl
igat
ion
rsquo
CJEU
The
Que
en o
n th
e ap
plic
atio
n of
MA
and
Oth
ers v
Sec
reta
ry o
f St
ate
for t
he H
ome
Depa
rtm
ent
C-64
811
EUC
201
336
7
060
620
13
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g un
der A
rtic
le 2
67 T
FEU
from
the
Cour
t of A
ppea
l (E
ngla
nd a
nd W
ales
) (Ci
vil D
ivisi
on) (
Uni
ted
King
dom
) co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
the
seco
nd
paragrap
hofArticle6ofC
ouncilRe
gulatio
n(EC)No34
320
03of1
8 Februa
ry200
3establish
ingthe
crite
ria a
nd m
echa
nism
s for
det
erm
inin
g th
e M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
for e
xam
inin
g an
asy
lum
ap
plic
atio
n lo
dged
in o
ne o
f the
Mem
ber S
tate
s by
a th
ird-c
ount
ry n
atio
nal
Regu
latio
n (E
C) N
o 34
320
03 ndash
Det
erm
inin
g th
e M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
ndash U
nacc
ompa
nied
min
or ndash
Su
cces
sive
appl
icat
ions
lodg
ed in
two
Mem
ber S
tate
s ndash A
bsen
ce o
f a m
embe
r of t
he fa
mily
of t
he m
inor
in
the
terr
itory
of a
Mem
ber S
tate
ndash T
rans
fer o
f the
min
or to
the
Mem
ber S
tate
in w
hich
he
lodg
ed h
is fir
st
appl
icat
ion
ndash Co
mpa
tibili
ty ndash
Chi
ldrsquos
best
inte
rest
s
Para
57
lsquo57
Tho
se fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts i
nclu
de i
n pa
rtic
ular
tha
t set
out
in A
rtic
le 2
4(2)
of t
he C
hart
er w
here
by in
al
l act
ions
rela
ting
to c
hild
ren
whe
ther
take
n by
pub
lic a
utho
ritie
s or p
rivat
e in
stitu
tions
the
chi
ldrsquos
best
in
tere
sts a
re to
be
a pr
imar
y co
nsid
erat
ion
rsquo
Djab
ali
C-31
496
12 M
arch1998
Garc
iacutea B
lanc
o C
-225
02
20 Janu
ary2005
Unioacute
de
Page
sos d
e Ca
talu
nya
C-1
971
0
15 Sep
tembe
r2011
Rose
nbla
dt C
-45
09
12 Octob
er2010
Mig
ratio
nsve
rket
v
Edga
r Pet
rosia
n an
d O
ther
s C-
190
8
29 Janu
ary2009
Detiček
C-40
309
23 Decem
ber2
009
McB
C-
400
10
5 Octob
er2010
12 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
Min
ister
voo
r Im
mig
ratie
en
Asi
el v
X Y
and
Z v
M
inist
er v
oor I
mm
igra
tie
en A
siel
Join
ed c
ases
C-1
991
2 to
C-
201
12
EUC
201
372
0
071
120
13
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
conc
erni
ng th
e in
terp
reta
tion
of A
rtic
le 9
(1)(a
) of C
ounc
il Directive20
0483EC
of2
9 Ap
ril200
4on
minim
umstan
dardsforth
equ
alificatio
nan
dstatusofthird-
coun
try
natio
nals
or S
tate
less
per
sons
as r
efug
ees o
r as p
erso
ns w
ho o
ther
wise
nee
d in
tern
atio
nal
prot
ectio
n an
d th
e co
nten
t of t
he p
rote
ctio
n gr
ante
d re
ad in
con
junc
tion
with
Art
icle
9(2
)(c) a
nd A
rtic
le
10(1
)(d) t
here
of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3EC
ndash M
inim
um st
anda
rds r
elat
ing
to th
e co
nditi
ons f
or g
rant
ing
refu
gee
stat
us o
r su
bsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
stat
us ndash
Mem
bers
hip
of a
par
ticul
ar so
cial
gro
up ndash
Sex
ual o
rient
atio
n ndash
Conc
ept o
f lsquop
erse
cutio
nrsquo ndash
pers
ecut
ed o
n ac
coun
t of m
embe
rshi
p of
a p
artic
ular
soci
al g
roup
Para
40
lsquo40
The
Dire
ctiv
e m
ust
for t
hat r
easo
n b
e in
terp
rete
d in
the
light
of i
ts g
ener
al sc
hem
e an
d pu
rpos
e a
nd
in a
man
ner c
onsis
tent
with
the
Gene
va C
onve
ntio
n an
d th
e ot
her r
elev
ant t
reat
ies r
efer
red
to in
Art
icle
78
(1) T
FEU
As i
s app
aren
t fro
m re
cita
l 10
in th
e pr
eam
ble
ther
eto
the
dire
ctiv
e m
ust a
lso b
e in
terp
rete
d in
a m
anne
r con
siste
nt w
ith th
e rig
hts r
ecog
nise
d by
the
Char
terrsquo
Para
s 5
3-54
lsquo53
It i
s cle
ar fr
om th
ose
prov
ision
s tha
t fo
r a v
iola
tion
of fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts t
o co
nstit
ute
pers
ecut
ion
with
in th
e m
eani
ng o
f Art
icle
1(A
) of t
he G
enev
a Co
nven
tion
it m
ust b
e su
ffici
ently
serio
us T
here
fore
no
t all
viol
atio
ns o
f fun
dam
enta
l rig
hts s
uffe
red
by a
hom
osex
ual a
sylu
m se
eker
will
nec
essa
rily
reac
h th
at
leve
l of s
erio
usne
ss
lsquo54
In th
at c
onne
ctio
n it
mus
t be
stat
ed a
t the
out
set t
hat t
he fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts s
peci
fical
ly li
nked
to
the
sexu
al o
rient
atio
n co
ncer
ned
in e
ach
of th
e ca
ses i
n th
e m
ain
proc
eedi
ngs
such
as t
he ri
ght t
o re
spec
t fo
r priv
ate
and
fam
ily li
fe w
hich
is p
rote
cted
by
Artic
le 8
of t
he E
CHR
to w
hich
Art
icle
7 o
f the
Cha
rter
co
rres
pond
s re
ad to
geth
er w
here
nec
essa
ry w
ith A
rtic
le 1
4 EC
HR o
n w
hich
Art
icle
21(
1) o
f the
Cha
rter
is
base
d is
not
am
ong
the
fund
amen
tal h
uman
righ
ts fr
om w
hich
no
dero
gatio
n is
poss
ible
rsquo
Para
s 5
6-57
lsquo56
How
ever
the
term
of i
mpr
isonm
ent w
hich
acc
ompa
nies
a le
gisla
tive
prov
ision
whi
ch l
ike
thos
e at
iss
ue in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s p
unish
es h
omos
exua
l act
s is c
apab
le i
n its
elf o
f con
stitu
ting
an a
ct o
f pe
rsec
utio
n w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 9
(1) o
f the
Dire
ctiv
e p
rovi
ded
that
it is
act
ually
app
lied
in th
e co
untr
y of
orig
in w
hich
ado
pted
such
legi
slatio
n
Y an
d Z
join
ed ca
ses
C-71
11
and
C-99
11
5 Septem
ber2
012
Abed
El K
arem
El K
ott
and
Oth
ers
C-36
411
19 Decem
ber2
012
Sala
hadi
n Ab
dulla
and
O
ther
s jo
ined
case
s C-
175
08 C
-176
08
C-
178
08 a
nd C
-179
08
2 March2010
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 13
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo57
Suc
h a
sanc
tion
infr
inge
s Art
icle
8 E
CHR
to w
hich
Art
icle
7 o
f the
Cha
rter
cor
resp
onds
and
co
nstit
utes
pun
ishm
ent w
hich
is d
ispro
port
iona
te o
r disc
rimin
ator
y w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 9
(2)(c
) of
the
Dire
ctiv
ersquo
Para
s 6
3-64
lsquo63
In o
rder
to a
nsw
er th
at q
uest
ion
that
the
refe
rrin
g co
urt h
as d
ivid
ed in
to se
vera
l par
ts i
t mus
t be
obse
rved
that
it re
fers
to a
situ
atio
n in
whi
ch a
s in
the
case
s in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s th
e ap
plic
ant
has n
ot sh
own
that
he
has a
lread
y be
en p
erse
cute
d or
has
alre
ady
been
subj
ect t
o di
rect
thre
ats o
f pe
rsec
utio
n on
acc
ount
of h
is m
embe
rshi
p of
a p
artic
ular
soci
al g
roup
who
se m
embe
rs sh
are
the
sam
e se
xual
orie
ntat
ion
lsquo64
The
lack
of s
uch
a se
rious
indi
catio
n of
a w
ell-f
ound
ed fe
ar o
n th
e pa
rt o
f the
app
lican
ts w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 4
(4) o
f the
Dire
ctiv
e e
xpla
ins t
he re
ferr
ing
cour
trsquos n
eed
to k
now
to w
hat e
xten
t it m
ay
be o
pen
to it
whe
re a
n ap
plic
ant c
anno
t bas
e hi
s fea
r on
pers
ecut
ion
alre
ady
suffe
red
on a
ccou
nt o
f hi
s mem
bers
hip
of th
at g
roup
to
requ
ire th
at o
n re
turn
to h
is co
untr
y of
orig
in h
e sh
ould
con
tinue
to
avoi
d th
e ris
k of
per
secu
tion
by c
once
alin
g hi
s hom
osex
ualit
y or
at t
he v
ery
leas
t th
at h
e sh
ould
exe
rcise
re
stra
int i
n ex
pres
sing
his s
exua
l orie
ntat
ion
rsquo
CJEU
Fede
ral a
gent
shap
vo
or d
e op
vang
van
as
ielzo
eker
s v S
elve
r Sa
ciri
Dan
ijela
Dor
devi
c
Danj
el S
aciri
San
ela
Saci
ri D
enis
Sac
iri
Ope
nbaa
r Cen
trum
voo
r M
aats
chap
pelij
k W
elzi
jn
van
Dies
t
C-79
13
EUC
201
410
3
270
220
14
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ns th
e in
terp
reta
tion
of A
rtic
le 1
3(5)
of C
ounc
il Directive20
039ECof27 Janu
ary20
03laying
dow
nminim
umstan
dardsforth
ereceptionofasylum
seek
ers
Dire
ctiv
e 20
039
EC
ndash M
inim
um st
anda
rds f
or th
e re
cept
ion
of a
sylu
m se
eker
s in
the
Mem
ber S
tate
s ndash
Tim
e-lim
its fo
r mat
eria
l rec
eptio
n co
nditi
ons ndash
Pro
visio
ns o
n m
ater
ial r
ecep
tion
cond
ition
s ndash G
uara
ntee
s ndash
Sett
ing
and
gran
t of m
inim
um re
cept
ion
cond
ition
s for
asy
lum
seek
ers ndash
Size
of t
he a
id g
rant
ed
Para
34
lsquo34
It is
app
aren
t fro
m th
e ve
ry te
rms o
f Art
icle
13(
1) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
039
that
the
mat
eria
l rec
eptio
n co
nditi
ons m
ust b
e av
aila
ble
to a
sylu
m se
eker
s w
heth
er p
rovi
ded
in k
ind
or in
the
form
of f
inan
cial
al
low
ance
s w
hen
they
mak
e th
eir a
pplic
atio
n fo
r asy
lum
rsquo
Para
41
lsquo41
It fo
llow
s the
refr
om th
at a
lthou
gh th
e am
ount
of t
he fi
nanc
ial a
id g
rant
ed is
to b
e de
term
ined
by
each
Mem
ber S
tate
it m
ust b
e su
ffici
ent t
o en
sure
a d
igni
fied
stan
dard
of l
ivin
g an
d ad
equa
te fo
r the
he
alth
of a
pplic
ants
and
cap
able
of e
nsur
ing
thei
r sub
siste
nce
rsquo
Cim
ade
and
GIST
I C-1791127 Septem
ber
2012
14 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
42
lsquo42
In th
e co
ntex
t of s
ettin
g th
e m
ater
ial r
ecep
tion
cond
ition
s in
the
form
of f
inan
cial
allo
wan
ces
pu
rsua
nt to
the
seco
nd su
bpar
agra
ph o
f Art
icle
13(
2) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
039
the
Mem
ber S
tate
s are
requ
ired
to a
djus
t the
rece
ptio
n co
nditi
ons t
o th
e sit
uatio
n of
per
sons
hav
ing
spec
ific
need
s a
s ref
erre
d to
in
Artic
le 1
7 of
the
dire
ctiv
e A
ccor
ding
ly th
e fin
anci
al a
llow
ance
s mus
t be
suffi
cien
t to
pres
erve
fam
ily u
nity
an
d th
e be
st in
tere
sts o
f the
chi
ld w
hich
pur
suan
t to
Artic
le 1
8(1)
are
to b
e a
prim
ary
cons
ider
atio
nrsquo
Para
45
lsquo45
How
ever
alth
ough
Art
icle
14(
3) o
f tha
t dire
ctiv
e do
es n
ot a
pply
whe
re th
e m
ater
ial r
ecep
tion
cond
ition
s are
pro
vide
d ex
clus
ivel
y in
the
form
of f
inan
cial
allo
wan
ces
the
fact
rem
ains
that
thos
e al
low
ance
s mus
t ena
ble
if n
eces
sary
min
or c
hild
ren
of a
sylu
m se
eker
s to
be h
ouse
d w
ith th
eir p
aren
ts
so th
at th
e fa
mily
uni
ty a
s ref
erre
d to
in p
arag
raph
41
of th
e pr
esen
t jud
gmen
t is
mai
ntai
ned
rsquo
Para
48
lsquo48
In th
at re
gard
it i
s nec
essa
ry to
bea
r in
min
d th
at i
f the
Mem
ber S
tate
s are
not
in a
pos
ition
to g
rant
th
e m
ater
ial r
ecep
tion
cond
ition
s in
kind
Dire
ctiv
e 20
039
leav
es th
em th
e po
ssib
ility
of o
ptin
g to
gra
nt
the
mat
eria
l rec
eptio
n co
nditi
ons i
n th
e fo
rm o
f fin
anci
al a
llow
ance
s T
hose
allo
wan
ces m
ust
how
ever
be
suffi
cien
t to
mee
t the
bas
ic n
eeds
of a
sylu
m se
eker
s in
clud
ing
a di
gnifi
ed st
anda
rd o
f liv
ing
and
mus
t be
adeq
uate
for t
heir
heal
thrsquo
Para
49
lsquo49
Giv
en th
at th
e M
embe
r Sta
tes h
ave
a ce
rtai
n m
argi
n of
disc
retio
n as
rega
rds t
he m
etho
ds b
y w
hich
th
ey p
rovi
de th
e m
ater
ial r
ecep
tion
cond
ition
s th
ey m
ay th
us m
ake
paym
ent o
f the
fina
ncia
l allo
wan
ces
usin
g th
e bo
dies
whi
ch fo
rm p
art o
f the
gen
eral
pub
lic a
ssist
ance
syst
em a
s int
erm
edia
ry p
rovi
ded
that
th
ose
bodi
es e
nsur
e th
at th
e m
inim
um st
anda
rds l
aid
dow
n in
that
dire
ctiv
e as
rega
rds t
he a
sylu
m se
eker
s ar
e m
etrsquo
Para
50
lsquo50
In th
at re
gard
it m
ust b
e po
inte
d ou
t tha
t it i
s for
the
Mem
ber S
tate
s to
ensu
re th
at th
ose
bodi
es
mee
t the
min
imum
stan
dard
s for
the
rece
ptio
n of
asy
lum
seek
ers
satu
ratio
n of
the
rece
ptio
n ne
twor
ks
not b
eing
a ju
stifi
catio
n fo
r any
der
ogat
ion
from
mee
ting
thos
e st
anda
rdsrsquo
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 15
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
[GC]
A B
and
C v
St
aats
secr
etar
is v
an
Veili
ghei
d en
Just
itie
Join
ed C
ases
C-1
481
3 to
C-
150
13
ECLI
EU
C2
014
2406
021
220
14
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
n th
e in
terp
reta
tion
of A
rtic
le 4
of C
ounc
il Directive20
0483EC
of2
9 Ap
ril200
4on
minim
umstan
dardsforth
equ
alificatio
nan
dstatusofthird
coun
try
natio
nals
or st
atel
ess p
erso
ns a
s ref
ugee
s or a
s per
sons
who
oth
erw
ise n
eed
inte
rnat
iona
l pr
otec
tion
and
the
cont
ent o
f the
pro
tect
ion
gran
ted
and
Artic
les 3
and
7 o
f the
Cha
rter
of F
unda
men
tal
Righ
ts o
f the
Eur
opea
n U
nion
Area
of f
reed
om s
ecur
ity a
nd ju
stic
e mdash
Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3EC
mdash M
inim
um st
anda
rds f
or g
rant
ing
refu
gee
stat
us o
r sub
sidia
ry p
rote
ctio
n st
atus
mdash A
rtic
le 4
mdash A
sses
smen
t of f
acts
and
circ
umst
ance
s mdash M
etho
ds
of a
sses
smen
t mdash A
ccep
tanc
e of
cer
tain
type
s of e
vide
nce
mdash E
xten
t of t
he c
ompe
tent
nat
iona
l aut
horit
yrsquos
pow
ers mdash
Fea
r of p
erse
cutio
n on
gro
unds
of s
exua
l orie
ntat
ion
Para
57
lsquo57
It sh
ould
be
note
d in
that
rega
rd th
at i
n ac
cord
ance
with
Art
icle
4(3
)(c) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3 th
at
asse
ssm
ent m
ust b
e m
ade
on a
n in
divi
dual
bas
is an
d m
ust t
ake
acco
unt o
f the
indi
vidu
al si
tuat
ion
and
pers
onal
circ
umst
ance
s of t
he a
pplic
ant
incl
udin
g fa
ctor
s suc
h as
bac
kgro
und
gen
der a
nd a
ge i
n or
der
for i
t to
be d
eter
min
ed w
heth
er o
n th
e ba
sis o
f the
app
lican
trsquos p
erso
nal c
ircum
stan
ces
the
acts
to w
hich
th
e ap
plic
ant h
as b
een
or c
ould
be
expo
sed
wou
ld a
mou
nt to
per
secu
tion
or se
rious
har
mrsquo
Para
s 6
1-62
lsquo61
In th
at re
spec
t it
shou
ld b
e re
calle
d th
at A
rtic
le 4
(3)(c
) of D
irect
ive
2004
83
requ
ires t
he c
ompe
tent
au
thor
ities
to c
arry
out
an
asse
ssm
ent t
hat t
akes
acc
ount
of t
he in
divi
dual
pos
ition
and
per
sona
l ci
rcum
stan
ces o
f the
app
lican
t and
that
Art
icle
13(
3)(a
) of D
irect
ive
2005
85
requ
ires t
hose
aut
horit
ies
to c
ondu
ct th
e in
terv
iew
in a
man
ner t
hat t
akes
acc
ount
of t
he p
erso
nal a
nd g
ener
al c
ircum
stan
ces
surr
ound
ing
the
appl
icat
ion
lsquo62
Whi
le q
uest
ions
bas
ed o
n st
ereo
type
d no
tions
may
be
a us
eful
ele
men
t at t
he d
ispos
al o
f com
pete
nt
auth
oriti
es fo
r the
pur
pose
s of t
he a
sses
smen
t th
e as
sess
men
t of a
pplic
atio
ns fo
r the
gra
nt o
f ref
ugee
st
atus
on
the
basis
sole
ly o
f ste
reot
yped
not
ions
ass
ocia
ted
with
hom
osex
uals
does
not
nev
erth
eles
s
satis
fy th
e re
quire
men
ts o
f the
pro
visio
ns re
ferr
ed to
in th
e pr
evio
us p
arag
raph
in
that
it d
oes n
ot a
llow
th
ose
auth
oriti
es to
take
acc
ount
of t
he in
divi
dual
situ
atio
n an
d pe
rson
al c
ircum
stan
ces o
f the
app
lican
t fo
r asy
lum
con
cern
edrsquo
NC-604128 M
ay
2014
X an
d O
ther
s C-
199
12 to
C-2
011
2
7 No
vembe
r2013
M C
-277
11
22 Novem
ber2
012
16 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
s 6
4-66
rsquo64
In th
e se
cond
pla
ce w
hile
the
natio
nal a
utho
ritie
s are
ent
itled
to c
arry
out
whe
re a
ppro
pria
te
inte
rvie
ws i
n or
der t
o de
term
ine
the
fact
s and
circ
umst
ance
s as r
egar
ds th
e de
clar
ed se
xual
orie
ntat
ion
of
an a
pplic
ant f
or a
sylu
m q
uest
ions
con
cern
ing
deta
ils o
f the
sexu
al p
ract
ices
of t
hat a
pplic
ant a
re c
ontr
ary
to th
e fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts g
uara
ntee
d by
the
Char
ter a
nd i
n pa
rtic
ular
to
the
right
to re
spec
t for
priv
ate
and
fam
ily li
fe a
s affi
rmed
in A
rtic
le 7
ther
eof
lsquo65
In re
latio
n in
the
third
pla
ce t
o th
e op
tion
for t
he n
atio
nal a
utho
ritie
s of a
llow
ing
as c
erta
in
appl
ican
ts in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s pro
pose
d h
omos
exua
l act
s to
be p
erfo
rmed
the
subm
issio
n of
the
appl
ican
ts to
pos
sible
lsquotes
tsrsquo i
n or
der t
o de
mon
stra
te th
eir h
omos
exua
lity
or e
ven
the
prod
uctio
n by
thos
e ap
plic
ants
of e
vide
nce
such
as f
ilms o
f the
ir in
timat
e ac
ts i
t mus
t be
poin
ted
out t
hat
besid
es th
e fa
ct
that
such
evi
denc
e do
es n
ot n
eces
saril
y ha
ve p
roba
tive
valu
e su
ch e
vide
nce
wou
ld o
f its
nat
ure
infr
inge
hu
man
dig
nity
the
resp
ect o
f whi
ch is
gua
rant
eed
by A
rtic
le 1
of t
he C
hart
er
lsquo66
Fur
ther
mor
e th
e ef
fect
of a
utho
risin
g or
acc
eptin
g su
ch ty
pes o
f evi
denc
e w
ould
be
to in
cite
oth
er
appl
ican
ts to
offe
r the
sam
e an
d w
ould
lead
de
fact
o to
requ
iring
app
lican
ts to
pro
vide
such
evi
denc
ersquo
Para
69
rsquo69
How
ever
hav
ing
rega
rd to
the
sens
itive
nat
ure
of q
uest
ions
rela
ting
to a
per
sonrsquo
s per
sona
l ide
ntity
an
d in
par
ticul
ar h
is se
xual
ity i
t can
not b
e co
nclu
ded
that
the
decl
ared
sexu
ality
lack
s cre
dibi
lity
simpl
y be
caus
e d
ue to
his
retic
ence
in re
veal
ing
intim
ate
aspe
cts o
f his
life
that
per
son
did
not d
ecla
re h
is ho
mos
exua
lity
at th
e ou
tset
rsquo
Para
70
lsquo70
Mor
eove
r it
mus
t be
obse
rved
that
the
oblig
atio
n la
id d
own
by A
rtic
le 4
(1) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3 to
subm
it al
l ele
men
ts n
eede
d to
subs
tant
iate
the
appl
icat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n lsquoa
s soo
n as
po
ssib
lersquo i
s tem
pere
d by
the
requ
irem
ent i
mpo
sed
on th
e co
mpe
tent
aut
horit
ies
und
er A
rtic
le 1
3(3)
(a) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
058
5 an
d Ar
ticle
4(3
) of D
irect
ive
2004
83
to c
ondu
ct th
e in
terv
iew
taki
ng a
ccou
nt o
f th
e pe
rson
al o
r gen
eral
circ
umst
ance
s sur
roun
ding
the
appl
icat
ion
in p
artic
ular
the
vul
nera
bilit
y of
the
appl
ican
t an
d to
car
ry o
ut a
n in
divi
dual
ass
essm
ent o
f the
app
licat
ion
taki
ng a
ccou
nt o
f the
indi
vidu
al
posit
ion
and
pers
onal
circ
umst
ance
s of e
ach
appl
ican
trsquo
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 17
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
Khal
ed B
oudj
lida
v Pr
eacutefet
des
Pyr
eacuteneacutee
s-At
lant
ique
s
C-24
913
EUC
201
424
31
111
220
14
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
6 o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
081
15E
C fo
r ret
urni
ng il
lega
lly st
ayin
g th
ird-c
ount
ry n
atio
nals
and
of th
e rig
ht to
be
hear
d in
all
proc
eedi
ngs
Dire
ctiv
e 20
081
15E
C mdash
Ret
urn
of il
lega
lly st
ayin
g th
ird-c
ount
ry n
atio
nals
mdash P
rinci
ple
of re
spec
t for
the
right
s of t
he d
efen
ce mdash
Rig
ht o
f an
illeg
ally
stay
ing
third
-cou
ntry
nat
iona
l to
be h
eard
bef
ore
the
adop
tion
of a
dec
ision
liab
le to
affe
ct h
is in
tere
sts mdash
Ret
urn
deci
sion
mdash R
ight
to b
e he
ard
befo
re th
e re
turn
de
cisio
n is
issue
d mdash
Ext
ent o
f tha
t rig
ht
Para
s 3
3-34
lsquo33
Con
sequ
ently
an
appl
ican
t for
a re
siden
t per
mit
cann
ot d
eriv
e fr
om A
rtic
le 4
1(2)
(a) o
f the
Ch
arte
r a ri
ght t
o be
hea
rd in
all
proc
eedi
ngs r
elat
ing
to h
is ap
plic
atio
n (t
he ju
dgm
ent i
n M
ukar
ubeg
a
EUC
201
423
36 p
arag
raph
44)
lsquo34
Suc
h a
right
is h
owev
er in
here
nt in
resp
ect f
or th
e rig
hts o
f the
def
ence
whi
ch is
a g
ener
al p
rinci
ple
of E
U la
w (t
he ju
dgm
ent i
n M
ukar
ubeg
a E
UC
201
423
36 p
arag
raph
45)
rsquo
Muk
arub
ega
C-1
661
3
5 No
vembe
r2014
Kam
ino
Inte
rnat
iona
l Lo
gist
ics C
-129
13
3 July2014
YS a
nd O
ther
s C-
141
12
andC-3721217 July
2014
Cica
la C
-482
10
21 Decem
ber2
011
M C
-277
11
22 Novem
ber2
012
Tech
nisc
he U
nive
rsitauml
t M
uumlnch
en C
-269
90
21 Novem
ber1
991
Sopr
opeacute
C-3
490
7
18 Decem
ber2
008
G an
d R
C-3
831
3
10 Sep
tembe
r2013
Alas
sini a
nd O
ther
s C-
317
08 to
C-3
200
8
18 M
arch2010
Texd
ata
Softw
are
C-4181126 Septem
ber
2013
Achu
ghba
bian
C-329116 Decem
ber
2011
18 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
[GC]
Moh
amed
MrsquoB
odj v
Eacuteta
t be
lge
C-54
213
EUC
201
424
52
181
220
14
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
s 2(e
) and
(f)
151
820(3)2
8an
d29
ofC
ouncilDirective20
0483EC
of2
9 Ap
ril200
4on
minim
umstan
dardsforth
equ
alifi
catio
n an
d st
atus
of t
hird
cou
ntry
nat
iona
ls or
stat
eles
s per
sons
as r
efug
ees o
r as p
erso
ns w
ho
othe
rwise
nee
d in
tern
atio
nal p
rote
ctio
n an
d th
e co
nten
t of t
he p
rote
ctio
n gr
ante
d
Char
ter o
f Fun
dam
enta
l Rig
hts o
f the
Eur
opea
n U
nion
mdash D
irect
ive
2004
83
EC ndash
ndash M
inim
um st
anda
rds
for d
eter
min
ing
who
qua
lifie
s for
refu
gee
stat
us o
r sub
sidia
ry p
rote
ctio
n st
atus
mdash To
rtur
e or
inhu
man
or
deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent o
r pun
ishm
ent o
f an
appl
ican
t in
the
coun
try
of o
rigin
mdash M
ore
favo
urab
le
stan
dard
s mdash A
pplic
ant s
uffe
ring
from
a se
rious
illn
ess mdash
No
appr
opria
te tr
eatm
ent a
vaila
ble
in th
e co
untr
y of
orig
in mdash
Soci
al p
rote
ctio
n mdash
Heal
th c
are
Para
s 3
5-37
lsquo35
Acc
ordi
ngly
Art
icle
6 o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3 se
ts o
ut a
list
of t
hose
dee
med
resp
onsib
le fo
r inf
lictin
g se
rious
har
m w
hich
supp
orts
the
view
that
such
har
m m
ust t
ake
the
form
of c
ondu
ct o
n th
e pa
rt o
f a
third
par
ty a
nd th
at it
can
not t
here
fore
sim
ply
be th
e re
sult
of g
ener
al sh
ortc
omin
gs in
the
heal
th
syst
em o
f the
cou
ntry
of o
rigin
lsquo36
Sim
ilarly
rec
ital 2
6 in
the
prea
mbl
e to
Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3 st
ates
that
risk
s to
whi
ch th
e po
pula
tion
of a
cou
ntry
or a
sect
ion
of th
e po
pula
tion
is ge
nera
lly e
xpos
ed d
o no
t nor
mal
ly in
them
selv
es c
reat
e an
indi
vidu
al th
reat
whi
ch w
ould
qua
lify
as se
rious
har
m I
t fol
low
s tha
t the
risk
of d
eter
iora
tion
in th
e he
alth
of a
third
cou
ntry
nat
iona
l suf
ferin
g fr
om a
serio
us il
lnes
s as a
resu
lt of
the
abse
nce
of a
ppro
pria
te
trea
tmen
t in
his c
ount
ry o
f orig
in is
not
suffi
cien
t un
less
that
third
cou
ntry
nat
iona
l is i
nten
tiona
lly
depr
ived
of h
ealth
car
e to
war
rant
that
per
son
bein
g gr
ante
d su
bsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
lsquo37
Tha
t int
erpr
etat
ion
is al
so su
ppor
ted
by re
cita
ls 5
6 9
and
24
in th
e pr
eam
ble
to D
irect
ive
2004
83
fr
om w
hich
it is
app
aren
t tha
t w
hile
the
dire
ctiv
e is
inte
nded
to c
ompl
emen
t and
add
to b
y m
eans
of
subs
idia
ry p
rote
ctio
n th
e pr
otec
tion
of re
fuge
es e
nshr
ined
in th
e Co
nven
tion
rela
ting
to th
e St
atus
of
Refugeessigne
dinGen
evaon
28 July195
1th
roug
htheiden
tificationofpersonsgen
uine
lyin
nee
dof
inte
rnat
iona
l pro
tect
ion
(see
to
that
effe
ct j
udgm
ent i
n Di
akiteacute
EU
C2
014
39 p
arag
raph
33)
its
scop
e do
es n
ot e
xten
d to
per
sons
gra
nted
leav
e to
resid
e in
the
terr
itorie
s of t
he M
embe
r Sta
tes f
or o
ther
re
ason
s th
at is
on
a di
scre
tiona
ry b
asis
on c
ompa
ssio
nate
or h
uman
itaria
n gr
ound
srsquo
Elga
faji
C-4
650
7
17 Fe
bruary2009
Diak
iteacute C
-285
12
30 Janu
ary2014
Maa
tsch
ap LA
en
DAB
Lang
estr
aat e
n P
Lang
estr
aat-T
roos
t C-111213 De
cembe
r20
12
ECtH
R N
v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m[G
C]27 May
2008no 2656505
30 Octob
er1991
B an
d D
C-5
709
and
C-101099 Novem
ber
2010
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 19
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
39
lsquo39
It sh
ould
be
note
d in
that
rega
rd th
at a
ccor
ding
to th
e ca
se-la
w o
f the
Eur
opea
n Co
urt o
f Hum
an
Righ
ts th
at w
hile
non
-nat
iona
ls su
bjec
t to
a de
cisio
n au
thor
ising
thei
r rem
oval
can
not
in p
rinci
ple
cla
im
any
entit
lem
ent t
o re
mai
n in
the
terr
itory
of a
Sta
te in
ord
er to
con
tinue
to b
enef
it fr
om m
edic
al s
ocia
l or
oth
er fo
rms o
f ass
istan
ce a
nd se
rvic
es p
rovi
ded
by th
at S
tate
a d
ecisi
on to
rem
ove
a fo
reig
n na
tiona
l su
fferin
g fr
om a
serio
us p
hysic
al o
r men
tal i
llnes
s to
a co
untr
y w
here
the
faci
litie
s for
the
trea
tmen
t of
the
illne
ss a
re in
ferio
r to
thos
e av
aila
ble
in th
at S
tate
may
raise
an
issue
und
er A
rtic
le 3
ECH
R in
ver
y ex
cept
iona
l cas
es w
here
the
hum
anita
rian
grou
nds a
gain
st re
mov
al a
re c
ompe
lling
rsquo
CJEU
[GC]
Meh
rdad
Ghe
zelb
ash
v St
aats
secr
etar
is v
an
Veili
ghei
d en
Just
itie
C-63
15
EUC
201
640
9
176
201
6
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
27
of
Regu
latio
n(EU)N
o60
420
13ofthe
Europ
eanParliam
enta
ndofthe
Cou
ncilof26 June
201
3establish
ing
the
crite
ria a
nd m
echa
nism
s for
det
erm
inin
g th
e M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
for e
xam
inin
g an
app
licat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n lo
dged
in o
ne o
f the
Mem
ber S
tate
s by
a th
ird-c
ount
ry n
atio
nal o
r a st
atel
ess
pers
on
Regu
latio
n (E
U) N
o 60
420
13 mdash
Det
erm
inat
ion
of th
e M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
for e
xam
inin
g an
asy
lum
ap
plic
atio
n lo
dged
in o
ne o
f the
Mem
ber S
tate
s by
a th
ird-c
ount
ry n
atio
nal mdash
Art
icle
12
mdash Is
sue
of
resid
ence
doc
umen
ts o
r visa
s mdash A
rtic
le 2
7 mdash
Rem
edie
s mdash E
xten
t of j
udic
ial s
crut
iny
Para
36
lsquo36
It is
app
aren
t fro
m th
e w
ordi
ng o
f Art
icle
27(
1) o
f Reg
ulat
ion
No
604
2013
that
the
lega
l rem
edy
prov
ided
for i
n th
at a
rtic
le m
ust b
e ef
fect
ive
and
cove
r que
stio
ns o
f bot
h fa
ct a
nd la
w M
oreo
ver
the
draf
ting
of th
at p
rovi
sion
mak
es n
o re
fere
nce
to a
ny li
mita
tion
of th
e ar
gum
ents
that
may
be
raise
d by
the
asyl
um se
eker
whe
n av
ailin
g hi
mse
lf of
that
rem
edy
The
sam
e ap
plie
s to
the
draf
ting
of A
rtic
le 4
(1)(d
) of
that
regu
latio
n c
once
rnin
g th
e in
form
atio
n th
at m
ust b
e pr
ovid
ed to
the
appl
ican
t by
the
com
pete
nt
auth
oriti
es a
s to
the
poss
ibili
ty o
f cha
lleng
ing
a tr
ansf
er d
ecisi
onrsquo
NS v
Sec
reta
ry o
f St
ate
for t
he H
ome
Depa
rtm
ent a
nd
ME
and
Oth
ers
v Re
fuge
e Ap
plica
tions
Co
mm
issio
ner a
nd
Min
ister
for J
ustic
e
Equa
lity
and
Law
Re
form
joi
ned
case
s C-
411
10 a
nd C
-493
10
21 Decem
ber2
011
Abdu
llahi
C-3
941
2
10 Decem
ber2
013
Mig
ratio
nsve
rket
v
Edga
r Pet
rosia
n an
d O
ther
s C-
190
8
29 Janu
ary2009
B an
d D
C-5
709
and
C-101099 Novem
ber
2010
20 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
M v
Min
ister
for J
ustic
e an
d Eq
ualit
y Ire
land
and
th
e At
torn
ey G
ener
al
C-56
014
EUC
201
710
1
090
220
17
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ns th
e in
terp
reta
tion
of th
e rig
ht to
be
hear
d in
th
e co
ntex
t of t
he p
roce
dure
for g
rant
of s
ubsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
stat
us u
nder
Cou
ncil
Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3EC
of2
9 Ap
ril200
4on
minim
umstan
dardsforth
equ
alificatio
nan
dstatusofthirdcou
ntrynationa
lsor
stat
eles
s per
sons
as r
efug
ees o
r as p
erso
ns w
ho o
ther
wise
nee
d in
tern
atio
nal p
rote
ctio
n an
d th
e co
nten
t of
the
prot
ectio
n gr
ante
d
Area
of f
reed
om s
ecur
ity a
nd ju
stic
e mdash
Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3EC
mdash M
inim
um st
anda
rds f
or th
e qu
alifi
catio
n an
d st
atus
of t
hird
cou
ntry
nat
iona
ls or
stat
eles
s per
sons
as r
efug
ees mdash
App
licat
ion
for s
ubsid
iary
pr
otec
tion
mdash la
wfu
lnes
s of t
he n
atio
nal p
roce
dure
for e
xam
inin
g an
app
licat
ion
for s
ubsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
mad
e af
ter t
he re
ject
ion
of a
n ap
plic
atio
n fo
r ref
ugee
stat
us mdash
Rig
ht to
be
hear
d mdash
Rig
ht to
an
inte
rvie
w mdash
Rig
ht to
cal
l and
cro
ss-e
xam
ine
witn
esse
s
Para
s 5
1-52
lsquo51
An
inte
rvie
w m
ust a
lso b
e ar
rang
ed if
it is
app
aren
t mdash in
the
light
of t
he p
erso
nal o
r gen
eral
ci
rcum
stan
ces i
n w
hich
the
appl
icat
ion
for s
ubsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
has b
een
mad
e in
par
ticul
ar a
ny sp
ecifi
c vu
lner
abili
ty o
f the
app
lican
t du
e fo
r exa
mpl
e to
his
age
his
stat
e of
hea
lth o
r the
fact
that
he
has b
een
subj
ecte
d to
serio
us fo
rms o
f vio
lenc
e mdash
that
one
is n
eces
sary
in o
rder
to a
llow
him
to c
omm
ent i
n fu
ll an
d co
here
ntly
on
the
elem
ents
cap
able
of s
ubst
antia
ting
that
app
licat
ion
lsquo52
Con
sequ
ently
the
refe
rrin
g co
urt h
as th
e ta
sk o
f est
ablis
hing
whe
ther
in th
e m
ain
proc
eedi
ngs t
here
ar
e sp
ecifi
c ci
rcum
stan
ces t
hat r
ende
r an
inte
rvie
w w
ith th
e ap
plic
ant f
or su
bsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
nece
ssar
y in
ord
er th
at h
is rig
ht to
be
hear
d is
effe
ctiv
ely
obse
rved
rsquo
Danq
ua C
-429
15
20 Octob
er2016
Muk
arub
ega
C-1
661
3
5 No
vembe
r2014
Boud
jlida
C-2
491
3
11 Decem
ber2
014
Leso
ochr
anaacuter
ske
zosk
upen
ie V
LK
C-243158 Novem
ber
2016
Bens
ada
Bena
llal
C-1611517 March
2016
Sopr
opeacute
C-3
490
7
18 Decem
ber2
008
G an
d R
C-8
313
10 Sep
tembe
r2013
M C
-277
11
22 Novem
ber2
012
Aalb
org
Port
land
and
O
ther
s v C
omm
issio
n
C-20
400
P C
-205
00
P C-
211
00 P
C-2
130
0 P
C-21
700
P a
nd
C-21900P7 Janu
ary
2004
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 21
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
CK a
nd O
ther
s v
Repu
blik
a Sl
oven
ija
C-57
816
PPU
EUC
201
712
7
160
220
17
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ns th
e in
terp
reta
tion
of A
rtic
les 3
(2) a
nd
17(1)o
fRegulation(EU)N
o60
420
13ofthe
Europ
eanParliam
enta
ndofthe
Cou
ncilof26 June
201
3es
tabl
ishin
g th
e cr
iteria
and
mec
hani
sms f
or d
eter
min
ing
the
Mem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
le fo
r exa
min
ing
an
appl
icat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n lo
dged
in o
ne o
f the
Mem
ber S
tate
s by
a th
ird-c
ount
ry n
atio
nal o
r a
stat
eles
s per
son
Art
icle
267
TFE
U a
nd A
rtic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
er o
f Fun
dam
enta
l Rig
hts o
f the
Eur
opea
n U
nion
Area
of f
reed
om s
ecur
ity a
nd ju
stic
e mdash
Bor
ders
asy
lum
and
imm
igra
tion
mdash D
ublin
syst
em mdash
Reg
ulat
ion
(EU
) No
604
2013
mdash A
rtic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
er o
f Fun
dam
enta
l Rig
hts o
f the
Eur
opea
n U
nion
mdash In
hum
an o
r de
grad
ing
trea
tmen
t mdash T
rans
fer o
f a se
rious
ly il
l asy
lum
seek
er to
the
Stat
e re
spon
sible
for e
xam
inin
g hi
s ap
plic
atio
n mdash
No
subs
tant
ial g
roun
ds fo
r bel
ievi
ng th
at th
ere
are
prov
en sy
stem
ic fl
aws i
n th
at M
embe
r St
ate
mdash O
blig
atio
ns im
pose
d on
the
Mem
ber S
tate
hav
ing
to c
arry
out
the
tran
sfer
Para
44
lsquo44
It fo
llow
s a
ccor
ding
to th
at c
ourt
tha
t the
re is
an
oblig
atio
n on
the
com
pete
nt a
utho
ritie
s and
the
natio
nal c
ourt
to e
xam
ine
all t
he c
ircum
stan
ces o
f sig
nific
ance
for o
bser
vanc
e of
the
prin
cipl
e of
non
-re
foul
emen
t in
clud
ing
the
stat
e of
hea
lth o
f the
per
son
conc
erne
d in
the
case
whe
re a
n as
ylum
seek
er
clai
ms t
hat t
he M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
for h
is ap
plic
atio
n is
not a
lsquosaf
e St
atersquo
for h
im I
n th
at c
onte
xt
thos
e au
thor
ities
mus
t tak
e in
to a
ccou
nt th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
per
sona
l situ
atio
n in
Slo
veni
a an
d as
sess
whe
ther
th
e m
ere
fact
of t
rans
ferr
ing
that
per
son
mig
ht in
itse
lf be
con
trar
y to
the
prin
cipl
e of
non
-ref
oule
men
trsquo
Para
59
lsquo59
How
ever
in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith th
e se
ttle
d ca
se-la
w o
f the
Cou
rt t
he ru
les o
f sec
onda
ry E
U la
w
incl
udin
g th
e pr
ovisi
ons o
f the
Dub
lin II
I Reg
ulat
ion
mus
t be
inte
rpre
ted
and
appl
ied
in a
man
ner
cons
isten
t with
the
fund
amen
tal r
ight
s gua
rant
eed
by th
e Ch
arte
r (se
e b
y an
alog
y as
rega
rds t
he D
ublin
IIRe
gulatio
nju
dgmen
tof2
1 De
cembe
r201
1N
S a
nd O
ther
s C
-411
10
and
C-49
310
EU
C2
011
865
pa
ragr
aphs
77
and
99)
The
proh
ibiti
on o
f inh
uman
or d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t or p
unish
men
t la
id d
own
in A
rtic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
er i
s in
that
rega
rd o
f fun
dam
enta
l im
port
ance
to
the
exte
nt th
at it
is a
bsol
ute
in th
at it
is c
lose
ly li
nked
to re
spec
t for
hum
an d
igni
ty w
hich
is th
e su
bjec
t of A
rtic
le 1
of t
he C
hart
er
(see
tothateffe
ctjud
gmen
tof5
April20
16A
ranyosi and
Căldă
raru
C-4
041
5 an
d C-
659
15 P
PU
EUC
201
619
8 p
arag
raph
s 85
and
86)rsquo
NS a
nd O
ther
s C-
411
10 a
nd C
-493
10
21 Decem
ber2
011
Aranyosi an
d Că
ldăraru
C-
404
15 a
nd C
-659
15
5 Ap
ril2016
Ghez
elba
sh C
-63
15
7 June
2016
ECtH
R P
apos
hvili
v
Belg
ium
no 4173810
13 Decem
ber2
016
IC-255135 Ju
ne2014
Aranyosi an
d Că
ldăraru
C-
404
15 a
nd C
-659
15
5 Ap
ril2016
ECtH
R K
arim
v Sw
eden
no
24171054 Ju
ly
2006
ECtH
R K
ochi
eva
and
Oth
ers v
Swed
en (d
ec)
no 752031230 Ap
ril
2013
22 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
63
lsquo63
As r
egar
ds th
e fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts t
hat a
re c
onfe
rred
on
them
in
addi
tion
to th
e co
dific
atio
n in
Artic
le3(2)o
fthe
Dub
linIIIR
egulationofthe
case-lawarisingfrom
thejudg
men
tof2
1 De
cembe
r20
11 N
S a
nd O
ther
s (C-
411
10 a
nd C
-493
10
EU
C2
011
865)
ref
erre
d to
in p
arag
raph
60
of th
e pr
esen
t jud
gmen
t th
e EU
legi
slatu
re st
ress
ed i
n re
cita
ls 32
and
39
of th
at re
gula
tion
that
the
Mem
ber
Stat
es a
re b
ound
in
the
appl
icat
ion
of th
at re
gula
tion
by
the
case
-law
of t
he E
urop
ean
Cour
t of H
uman
Ri
ghts
and
by
Artic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
errsquo
Para
65
lsquo65
It fo
llow
s fro
m a
ll of
the
prec
edin
g co
nsid
erat
ions
that
the
tran
sfer
of a
n as
ylum
seek
er w
ithin
the
fram
ewor
k of
the
Dubl
in II
I Reg
ulat
ion
can
take
pla
ce o
nly
in c
ondi
tions
whi
ch p
recl
ude
that
tran
sfer
from
re
sulti
ng in
a re
al ri
sk o
f the
per
son
conc
erne
d su
fferin
g in
hum
an o
r deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent
with
in th
e m
eani
ng o
f Art
icle
4 o
f the
Cha
rter
rsquo
Para
70
lsquo70
In
that
rega
rd i
t mus
t be
stat
ed a
s reg
ards
the
rece
ptio
n co
nditi
ons a
nd th
e ca
re a
vaila
ble
in th
e M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
tha
t the
Mem
ber S
tate
s bou
nd b
y th
e lsquore
cept
ionrsquo
dire
ctiv
e in
clud
ing
the
Repu
blic
of C
roat
ia a
re re
quire
d in
clud
ing
in th
e co
ntex
t of t
he p
roce
dure
und
er th
e Du
blin
III R
egul
atio
n
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith A
rtic
les 1
7 to
19
of th
at d
irect
ive
to p
rovi
de a
sylu
m se
eker
s with
the
nece
ssar
y he
alth
ca
re a
nd m
edic
al a
ssist
ance
incl
udin
g a
t lea
st e
mer
genc
y ca
re a
nd e
ssen
tial t
reat
men
t of i
llnes
ses a
nd o
f se
rious
men
tal d
isord
ers
In th
ose
circ
umst
ance
s a
nd in
acc
orda
nce
with
the
mut
ual c
onfid
ence
bet
wee
n M
embe
r Sta
tes
ther
e is
a st
rong
pre
sum
ptio
n th
at th
e m
edic
al tr
eatm
ents
offe
red
to a
sylu
m se
eker
s in
the
Mem
ber S
tate
s will
be
adeq
uate
rsquo
Para
73
lsquo73
That
said
it c
anno
t be
rule
d ou
t tha
t the
tran
sfer
of a
n as
ylum
seek
er w
hose
stat
e of
hea
lth is
pa
rtic
ular
ly se
rious
may
in
itsel
f re
sult
for t
he p
erso
n co
ncer
ned
in a
real
risk
of i
nhum
an o
r deg
radi
ng
trea
tmen
t with
in th
e m
eani
ng o
f Art
icle
4 o
f the
Cha
rter
irr
espe
ctiv
e of
the
qual
ity o
f the
rece
ptio
n an
d th
e ca
re a
vaila
ble
in th
e M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
for e
xam
inin
g hi
s app
licat
ion
rsquo
ECtH
R D
raga
n an
d O
ther
s v G
erm
any
(dec
) no
33743037 Octob
er
2004
Hala
fC-5281130 May
2013
Abdu
llahi
C-3
941
2
10 Decem
ber2
013
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 23
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
s 7
5-77
lsquo75
Con
sequ
ently
whe
re a
n as
ylum
seek
er p
rovi
des
par
ticul
arly
in th
e co
ntex
t of a
n ef
fect
ive
rem
edy
guar
ante
ed to
him
by
Artic
le 2
7 of
the
Dubl
in II
I Reg
ulat
ion
obj
ectiv
e ev
iden
ce s
uch
as m
edic
al
cert
ifica
tes c
once
rnin
g hi
s per
son
cap
able
of s
how
ing
the
part
icul
ar se
rious
ness
of h
is st
ate
of h
ealth
an
d th
e sig
nific
ant a
nd ir
reve
rsib
le c
onse
quen
ces t
o w
hich
his
tran
sfer
mig
ht le
ad t
he a
utho
ritie
s of t
he
Mem
ber S
tate
con
cern
ed i
nclu
ding
its c
ourt
s c
anno
t ign
ore
that
evi
denc
e T
hey
are
on
the
cont
rary
un
der a
n ob
ligat
ion
to a
sses
s the
risk
that
such
con
sequ
ence
s cou
ld o
ccur
whe
n th
ey d
ecid
e to
tran
sfer
th
e pe
rson
con
cern
ed o
r in
the
case
of a
cou
rt t
he le
galit
y of
a d
ecisi
on to
tran
sfer
sin
ce th
e ex
ecut
ion
of
that
dec
ision
may
lead
to in
hum
an o
r deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent o
f tha
t per
son
lsquo76
It is
the
refo
re f
or th
ose
auth
oriti
es to
elim
inat
e an
y se
rious
dou
bts c
once
rnin
g th
e im
pact
of
the
tran
sfer
on
the
stat
e of
hea
lth o
f the
per
son
conc
erne
d In
this
rega
rd i
n pa
rtic
ular
in th
e ca
se o
f a
serio
us p
sych
iatr
ic il
lnes
s it
is n
ot su
ffici
ent t
o co
nsid
er o
nly
the
cons
eque
nces
of p
hysic
ally
tran
spor
ting
the
pers
on c
once
rned
from
one
Mem
ber S
tate
to a
noth
er b
ut a
ll th
e sig
nific
ant a
nd p
erm
anen
t co
nseq
uenc
es th
at m
ight
aris
e fr
om th
e tr
ansf
er m
ust b
e ta
ken
into
con
sider
atio
n
lsquo77
In th
at c
onte
xt t
he a
utho
ritie
s of t
he M
embe
r Sta
tes c
once
rned
mus
t ver
ify w
heth
er th
e st
ate
of
heal
th o
f the
per
son
at is
sue
may
be
prot
ecte
d ap
prop
riate
ly a
nd su
ffici
ently
by
taki
ng th
e pr
ecau
tions
en
visa
ged
by th
e Du
blin
III R
egul
atio
n an
d in
the
affir
mat
ive
mus
t im
plem
ent t
hose
pre
caut
ions
rsquo
Para
s 8
1-90
lsquo81
In th
is re
gard
the
Mem
ber S
tate
car
ryin
g ou
t the
tran
sfer
mus
t be
able
to o
rgan
ise it
in su
ch a
way
th
at th
e as
ylum
seek
er c
once
rned
is a
ccom
pani
ed d
urin
g tr
ansp
orta
tion
by
adeq
uate
med
ical
staf
f with
th
e ne
cess
ary
equi
pmen
t re
sour
ces a
nd m
edic
atio
n so
as t
o pr
even
t any
wor
seni
ng o
f his
heal
th o
r any
ac
t of v
iole
nce
by h
im to
war
ds h
imse
lf or
oth
er p
erso
ns
lsquo82
Tha
t Mem
ber S
tate
mus
t also
be
able
to e
nsur
e th
at th
e as
ylum
seek
er c
once
rned
rece
ives
car
e up
on
his a
rriv
al in
the
Mem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
le I
n th
at re
spec
t it
mus
t be
reca
lled
that
Art
icle
s 31
and
32
of th
e Du
blin
III R
egul
atio
n re
quire
the
Mem
ber S
tate
car
ryin
g ou
t the
tran
sfer
to c
omm
unic
ate
to th
e M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
such
info
rmat
ion
conc
erni
ng th
e st
ate
of h
ealth
of t
he a
sylu
m se
eker
as t
o al
low
that
Mem
ber S
tate
to p
rovi
de h
im w
ith th
e im
med
iate
hea
lth c
are
requ
ired
in o
rder
to p
rote
ct h
is vi
tal i
nter
ests
24 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo83
The
stan
dard
form
set o
ut in
Ann
ex V
I to
the
impl
emen
ting
regu
latio
n an
d th
e co
mm
on h
ealth
ce
rtifi
cate
foun
d in
Ann
ex IX
to th
at re
gula
tion
may
thus
be
used
to in
form
the
Mem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
le
that
the
asyl
um se
eker
con
cern
ed re
quire
s med
ical
ass
istan
ce a
nd c
are
upon
his
arriv
al a
s wel
l as a
ll th
e re
leva
nt a
spec
ts o
f his
illne
ss a
nd th
e ca
re w
hich
that
illn
ess w
ill m
ake
nece
ssar
y in
the
futu
re I
n th
at
case
tha
t inf
orm
atio
n m
ust b
e co
mm
unic
ated
with
in a
reas
onab
le p
erio
d of
tim
e be
fore
the
tran
sfer
is
carr
ied
out
in o
rder
to p
rovi
de th
e M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
with
suffi
cien
t tim
e to
take
the
nece
ssar
y m
easu
res
The
Mem
ber S
tate
car
ryin
g ou
t the
tran
sfer
may
in
addi
tion
obt
ain
from
the
Mem
ber S
tate
re
spon
sible
the
conf
irmat
ion
that
the
nece
ssar
y ca
re w
ill b
e fu
lly a
vaila
ble
upon
arr
ival
lsquo84
If t
he c
ourt
hav
ing
juris
dict
ion
finds
that
thos
e pr
ecau
tions
are
suffi
cien
t to
excl
ude
any
real
risk
of
inhu
man
or d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t in
the
even
t of t
rans
ferr
ing
the
asyl
um se
eker
con
cern
ed i
t will
be
for
that
cou
rt to
take
the
nece
ssar
y m
easu
res t
o en
sure
that
they
are
impl
emen
ted
by th
e au
thor
ities
of t
he
requ
estin
g M
embe
r Sta
te b
efor
e th
e pe
rson
con
cern
ed is
tran
sfer
red
Whe
re n
eces
sary
tha
t per
sonrsquo
s st
ate
of h
ealth
shou
ld b
e re
asse
ssed
bef
ore
the
tran
sfer
is c
arrie
d ou
t
lsquo85
On
the
othe
r han
d if
the
taki
ng o
f tho
se p
reca
utio
ns is
reg
ard
bein
g ha
d to
the
part
icul
ar se
rious
ness
of
the
illne
ss o
f the
asy
lum
seek
er c
once
rned
not
suffi
cien
t to
ensu
re th
at h
is tr
ansf
er w
ill n
ot re
sult
in
a re
al ri
sk o
f a si
gnifi
cant
and
per
man
ent w
orse
ning
of h
is st
ate
of h
ealth
it i
s for
the
auth
oriti
es o
f the
M
embe
r Sta
te c
once
rned
to su
spen
d th
e ex
ecut
ion
of th
at p
erso
nrsquos t
rans
fer f
or su
ch ti
me
as h
is st
ate
of
heal
th re
nder
s him
unf
it fo
r suc
h a
tran
sfer
lsquo86
In
that
rega
rd i
t mus
t be
reca
lled
that
in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith A
rtic
le 2
9(1)
of t
he D
ublin
III R
egul
atio
n
the
tran
sfer
of t
he a
pplic
ant f
rom
the
requ
estin
g M
embe
r Sta
te to
the
Mem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
le is
to b
e ca
rrie
d ou
t as s
oon
as lsquop
ract
ical
ly p
ossib
lersquo
As is
app
aren
t fro
m A
rtic
le 9
of t
he im
plem
entin
g re
gula
tion
th
e ill
hea
lth o
f the
asy
lum
seek
er is
spec
ifica
lly re
gard
ed a
s a lsquop
hysic
al re
ason
rsquo cap
able
of j
ustif
ying
po
stpo
nem
ent o
f the
tran
sfer
lsquo87
If th
e st
ate
of h
ealth
of t
he a
sylu
m se
eker
con
cern
ed d
oes n
ot p
erm
it hi
s tra
nsfe
r it
is th
en fo
r the
re
ques
ting
Mem
ber S
tate
in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith th
at p
rovi
sion
to in
form
the
Mem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
le
with
out d
elay
of t
he p
ostp
onem
ent o
f the
tran
sfer
due
to th
e co
nditi
on o
f tha
t asy
lum
seek
er
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 25
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo88
Whe
re n
eces
sary
if i
t is n
oted
that
the
stat
e of
hea
lth o
f the
asy
lum
seek
er c
once
rned
is n
ot
expe
cted
to im
prov
e in
the
shor
t ter
m o
r tha
t the
susp
ensio
n of
the
proc
edur
e fo
r a lo
ng p
erio
d w
ould
ris
k w
orse
ning
the
cond
ition
of t
he p
erso
n co
ncer
ned
the
requ
estin
g M
embe
r Sta
te m
ay c
hoos
e to
co
nduc
t its
ow
n ex
amin
atio
n of
his
appl
icat
ion
by m
akin
g us
e of
the
lsquodisc
retio
nary
cla
usersquo
laid
dow
n in
Artic
le17(1)ofthe
Dub
linIIIR
egulation(see
tothateffe
ctjud
gmen
tof3
0 May201
3H
alaf
C-5
281
1
EUC
201
334
2 p
arag
raph
38)
The
fact
nev
erth
eles
s rem
ains
that
that
pro
visio
n re
ad in
the
light
of
Artic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
er c
anno
t be
inte
rpre
ted
in a
situ
atio
n su
ch a
s tha
t at i
ssue
in th
e m
ain
proc
eedi
ngs
as
mea
ning
that
it im
plie
s an
oblig
atio
n on
that
Mem
ber S
tate
to m
ake
use
of it
in th
at w
ay
lsquo89
In
any
even
t if
the
stat
e of
hea
lth o
f the
asy
lum
seek
er c
once
rned
doe
s not
ena
ble
the
requ
estin
g M
embe
r Sta
te to
car
ry o
ut th
e tr
ansf
er b
efor
e th
e ex
piry
of t
he si
x-m
onth
per
iod
prov
ided
for i
n Ar
ticle
29(
1) o
f the
Dub
lin II
I Reg
ulat
ion
the
Mem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
le w
ould
be
relie
ved
of it
s obl
igat
ion
to ta
ke c
harg
e of
the
pers
on c
once
rned
and
resp
onsib
ility
wou
ld th
en b
e tr
ansf
erre
d to
the
first
Mem
ber
Stat
e in
acc
orda
nce
with
par
agra
ph 2
of t
hat a
rtic
le
lsquo90
It is
for t
he re
ferr
ing
cour
t to
dete
rmin
e in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s w
heth
er th
e st
ate
of h
ealth
of
C K
is o
f suc
h se
rious
ness
that
ther
e ar
e su
bsta
ntia
l gro
unds
for b
elie
ving
that
her
tran
sfer
wou
ld re
sult
for h
er in
a re
al ri
sk o
f inh
uman
or d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
er
In th
e af
firm
ativ
e it
will
be
for t
he re
ferr
ing
cour
t to
elim
inat
e th
ose
grou
nds b
y en
surin
g th
at th
e pr
ecau
tions
refe
rred
to in
par
agra
phs 8
1 to
83
of th
e pr
esen
t jud
gmen
t are
take
n be
fore
the
tran
sfer
of
C K
or
if ne
cess
ary
that
the
tran
sfer
of t
hat p
erso
n is
susp
ende
d un
til h
er st
ate
of h
ealth
per
mits
itrsquo
Para
98
lsquo98
Sin
ce th
ese
proc
eedi
ngs a
re f
or th
e pa
rtie
s to
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s a
step
in th
e ac
tion
pend
ing
befo
re th
e re
ferr
ing
cour
t th
e de
cisio
n on
cos
ts is
a m
atte
r for
that
cou
rt C
osts
incu
rred
in su
bmitt
ing
obse
rvat
ions
to th
e Co
urt
othe
r tha
n th
e co
sts o
f tho
se p
artie
s a
re n
ot re
cove
rabl
ersquo
26 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
Mou
ssa
Sack
o v
Com
mis
sion
e Te
rrito
riale
per
il
ricon
osci
men
to
della
pro
tezi
one
inte
rnaz
iona
le d
i Mila
no
C-34
816
EUC
201
759
1
260
720
17
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
s 12
14
31
and
46ofD
irective20
1332EU
ofthe
Europ
eanParliam
enta
ndofthe
Cou
ncilof26 June
201
3on
com
mon
pr
oced
ures
for g
rant
ing
and
with
draw
ing
inte
rnat
iona
l pro
tect
ion
Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
2EU
mdash A
rtic
les 1
2 1
4 3
1 an
d 46
mdash C
hart
er o
f Fun
dam
enta
l Rig
hts o
f the
Eur
opea
n U
nion
mdash A
rtic
le 4
7 mdash
Rig
ht to
effe
ctiv
e ju
dici
al p
rote
ctio
n mdash
App
eal a
gain
st a
dec
ision
refu
sing
an
appl
icat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n mdash
Whe
ther
it is
pos
sible
for t
he c
ourt
to a
djud
icat
e w
ithou
t he
arin
g th
e ap
plic
ant
Para
s 3
1-49
lsquo31
It fo
llow
s tha
t the
cha
ract
erist
ics o
f the
rem
edy
prov
ided
for i
n Ar
ticle
46
of D
irect
ive
2013
32
mus
t be
dete
rmin
ed in
a m
anne
r tha
t is c
onsis
tent
with
Art
icle
47
of th
e Ch
arte
r w
hich
con
stitu
tes
a re
affir
mat
ion
of th
e pr
inci
ple
of e
ffect
ive
judi
cial
pro
tect
ion
(see
by
anal
ogy
with
refe
renc
e to
Art
icle
39
ofCou
ncilDirective20
0585EC
of1
Decem
ber2
005on
minim
umstan
dardso
nproced
uresin
Mem
ber
Stat
es fo
r gra
ntin
g an
d w
ithdr
awin
g re
fuge
e st
atus
lsquo32
The
prin
cipl
e of
effe
ctiv
e ju
dici
al p
rote
ctio
n of
the
right
s whi
ch in
divi
dual
s der
ive
from
EU
law
co
mpr
ises v
ario
us e
lem
ents
in
part
icul
ar t
he ri
ghts
of t
he d
efen
ce t
he p
rinci
ple
of e
qual
ity o
f arm
s th
e rig
ht o
f acc
ess t
o a
trib
unal
and
the
right
to b
e ad
vise
d d
efen
ded
and
repr
esen
ted
lsquo33
With
rega
rd f
irst
to th
e pr
ocee
ding
s at f
irst i
nsta
nce
cove
red
by C
hapt
er II
I of D
irect
ive
2013
32
it
shou
ld b
e re
calle
d th
at w
hen
the
auth
oriti
es o
f the
Mem
ber S
tate
s tak
e m
easu
res w
hich
com
e w
ithin
th
e sc
ope
of E
U la
w th
ey a
re a
s a ru
le s
ubje
ct to
the
oblig
atio
n to
obs
erve
the
right
s of d
efen
ce o
f ad
dres
sees
of d
ecisi
ons w
hich
sign
ifica
ntly
affe
ct th
eir i
nter
ests
lsquo34
In
part
icul
ar t
he C
ourt
has
hel
d th
at th
e rig
ht to
be
hear
d in
any
pro
cedu
re i
nher
ent i
n re
spec
t for
th
e rig
hts o
f the
def
ence
whi
ch is
a g
ener
al p
rinci
ple
of E
U la
w g
uara
ntee
s eve
ry p
erso
n th
e op
port
unity
to
mak
e kn
own
his v
iew
s effe
ctiv
ely
durin
g an
adm
inist
rativ
e pr
oced
ure
and
befo
re th
e ad
optio
n of
any
de
cisio
n lia
ble
to a
ffect
his
inte
rest
s adv
erse
ly
lsquo35
In th
at re
gard
the
pur
pose
of t
he ru
le th
at th
e ad
dres
see
of a
n ad
vers
e de
cisio
n m
ust b
e pl
aced
in
a po
sitio
n to
subm
it hi
s obs
erva
tions
bef
ore
that
dec
ision
is a
dopt
ed is
int
er a
lia t
o en
able
that
per
son
to
corr
ect a
n er
ror o
r sub
mit
such
info
rmat
ion
rela
ting
to h
is or
her
per
sona
l circ
umst
ance
s as w
ill a
rgue
in
favo
ur o
f the
ado
ptio
n or
non
-ado
ptio
n of
the
deci
sion
or i
n fa
vour
of i
ts h
avin
g a
spec
ific
cont
ent
Leso
ochr
anaacuter
ske
zosk
upen
ie V
LK
C-243158 Novem
ber
2016
MC-560149 Fe
bruary
2017
Berli
oz In
vest
men
t Fun
d
C-6821516 May2017
Tall
C-2
391
4
17 Decem
ber2
015
Otis
and
Oth
ers
C-199116 Novem
ber
2012
G an
d R
C-3
831
3
10 Sep
tembe
r2013
Boud
jlida
C-2
491
3
11 Decem
ber2
014
Muk
arub
ega
C-1
661
3
5 No
vembe
r2014
Sam
ba D
iouf
C-6
910
28 Ju
ly2011
Lebe
kC-70157 Ju
ly
2016
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 27
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo36
With
rega
rd o
n th
e ot
her h
and
to th
e ap
peal
s pro
cedu
res c
over
ed b
y Ch
apte
r V o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
2 in
ord
er fo
r the
righ
t to
a re
med
y to
be
exer
cise
d ef
fect
ivel
y th
e na
tiona
l cou
rt m
ust b
e ab
le
to re
view
the
mer
its o
f the
reas
ons w
hich
led
the
com
pete
nt a
dmin
istra
tive
auth
ority
to fi
nd th
at th
e ap
plic
atio
n fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
was
unf
ound
ed o
r mad
e in
bad
faith
lsquo37
In th
is in
stan
ce i
t sho
uld
be n
oted
that
failu
re to
giv
e th
e ap
plic
ant t
he o
ppor
tuni
ty to
be
hear
d in
an
app
eals
proc
edur
e su
ch a
s tha
t cov
ered
by
Chap
ter V
of D
irect
ive
2013
32
cons
titut
es a
rest
rictio
n of
the
right
s of t
he d
efen
ce w
hich
form
par
t of t
he p
rinci
ple
of e
ffect
ive
judi
cial
pro
tect
ion
ensh
rined
in
Artic
le 4
7 of
the
Char
ter
lsquo38
How
ever
acc
ordi
ng to
the
Cour
trsquos se
ttle
d ca
se-la
w fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts
such
as r
espe
ct fo
r the
rig
hts o
f the
def
ence
whi
ch in
clud
es th
e rig
ht to
be
hear
d d
o no
t con
stitu
te u
nfet
tere
d pr
erog
ativ
es
and
may
be
rest
ricte
d p
rovi
ded
that
the
rest
rictio
ns in
fact
cor
resp
ond
to o
bjec
tives
of g
ener
al in
tere
st
purs
ued
by th
e m
easu
re in
que
stio
n an
d th
at th
ey d
o no
t ent
ail
with
rega
rd to
the
obje
ctiv
es p
ursu
ed
a di
spro
port
iona
te a
nd in
tole
rabl
e in
terfe
renc
e w
hich
infr
inge
s upo
n th
e ve
ry su
bsta
nce
of th
e rig
hts
guar
ante
ed
lsquo39
An
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
the
right
to b
e he
ard
gua
rant
eed
by A
rtic
le 4
7 of
the
Char
ter
to th
e ef
fect
that
it
is no
t an
abso
lute
righ
t is c
onfir
med
by
the
case
-law
of t
he E
urop
ean
Cour
t of H
uman
Rig
hts
in th
e lig
ht
of w
hich
Art
icle
47
of th
e Ch
arte
r mus
t be
inte
rpre
ted
as t
he fi
rst a
nd se
cond
par
agra
phs o
f tha
t art
icle
co
rres
pond
to A
rtic
le 6
(1) a
nd A
rtic
le 1
3 of
the
Euro
pean
Con
vent
ion
for t
he P
rote
ctio
n of
Hum
an R
ight
s an
dFu
ndam
entalFreed
omss
igne
dinRom
eon
4 Novem
ber1
950
lsquo40
In
that
rega
rd t
he C
ourt
has
pre
viou
sly st
ated
that
Art
icle
6(1
) of t
hat c
onve
ntio
n do
es n
ot im
pose
an
abso
lute
obl
igat
ion
to h
old
a pu
blic
hea
ring
and
does
not
nec
essa
rily
requ
ire th
at a
hea
ring
be h
eld
in a
ll pr
ocee
ding
s It
has
hel
d si
mila
rly t
hat n
eith
er th
e se
cond
par
agra
ph o
f Art
icle
47
of th
e Ch
arte
r nor
any
ot
her p
rovi
sion
ther
eof i
mpo
ses s
uch
an o
blig
atio
n
lsquo41
Fur
ther
mor
e th
e Co
urt h
as a
lso h
eld
that
the
ques
tion
whe
ther
ther
e is
an in
frin
gem
ent o
f the
righ
ts
of th
e de
fenc
e an
d th
e rig
ht to
effe
ctiv
e ju
dici
al p
rote
ctio
n m
ust b
e ex
amin
ed in
rela
tion
to th
e sp
ecifi
c ci
rcum
stan
ces o
f eac
h ca
se i
nclu
ding
the
natu
re o
f the
act
at i
ssue
the
con
text
in w
hich
it w
as a
dopt
ed
and
the
lega
l rul
es g
over
ning
the
mat
ter i
n qu
estio
n
Tom
a an
d Bi
roul
Ex
ecut
orul
ui
Judecătoresc Horațiu-
Vasil
e Cr
udul
eci
C-2051530 June
2016
Ande
chse
r Mol
kere
i Sc
heitz
v C
omm
issio
n
C-68
213
P n
ot
publish
ed4 Ju
ne2015
(in F
renc
h)
ECtH
R Ju
ssila
v
Finl
andno 7305301
23 Novem
ber2
006
Com
miss
ion
and
Oth
ers
v Ka
di C
-584
10
P C-
593
10 P
and
C-59510P18 July2013
ECtH
R D
oumlry
v Sw
eden
no
2839495
12 Novem
ber2
002
28 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo42
In th
is in
stan
ce t
he o
blig
atio
n im
pose
d in
Art
icle
46(
3) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
2 on
the
cour
t with
ju
risdi
ctio
n to
ens
ure
that
a fu
ll an
d ex
nun
c ex
amin
atio
n of
bot
h fa
cts a
nd p
oint
s of l
aw is
con
duct
ed
mus
t be
inte
rpre
ted
in th
e co
ntex
t of t
he p
roce
dure
for t
he e
xam
inat
ion
of a
pplic
atio
ns fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pr
otec
tion
as a
who
le a
s gov
erne
d by
that
dire
ctiv
e ta
king
into
acc
ount
the
clos
e lin
k be
twee
n ap
peal
pr
ocee
ding
s bef
ore
a co
urt o
r trib
unal
and
the
proc
eedi
ngs a
t firs
t ins
tanc
e pr
eced
ing
thos
e pr
ocee
ding
s
durin
g w
hich
the
appl
ican
t mus
t be
give
n th
e op
port
unity
of a
per
sona
l int
ervi
ew o
n hi
s or h
er a
pplic
atio
n fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
as r
equi
red
by A
rtic
le 1
4 of
the
dire
ctiv
e
lsquo43
It sh
ould
be
note
d in
that
rega
rd th
at a
s the
repo
rt o
r tra
nscr
ipt o
f any
per
sona
l int
ervi
ew w
ith a
n ap
plic
ant m
ust
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith A
rtic
le 1
7(2)
of D
irect
ive
2013
32
be
avai
labl
e in
con
nect
ion
with
the
appl
ican
trsquos fi
le t
he c
onte
nt o
f the
repo
rt o
r tra
nscr
ipt i
s an
impo
rtan
t fac
tor i
n th
e as
sess
men
t by
the
cour
t with
juris
dict
ion
whe
n it
carr
ies o
ut th
e fu
ll an
d ex
nun
c ex
amin
atio
n of
bot
h fa
cts a
nd p
oint
s of l
aw
requ
ired
unde
r Art
icle
46(
3) o
f the
dire
ctiv
e
lsquo44
It fo
llow
s a
s the
Adv
ocat
e Ge
nera
l obs
erve
d in
poi
nts 5
8 5
9 an
d 65
to 6
7 of
his
Opi
nion
tha
t w
heth
er it
is n
eces
sary
for t
he c
ourt
or t
ribun
al h
earin
g th
e ap
peal
pro
vide
d fo
r in
Artic
le 4
6 of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
2 to
gra
nt th
e ap
plic
ant a
hea
ring
has t
o be
ass
esse
d in
the
light
of i
ts o
blig
atio
n to
car
ry o
ut th
e fu
ll an
d ex
nun
c ex
amin
atio
n re
quire
d un
der A
rtic
le 4
6(3)
of t
he d
irect
ive
in th
e in
tere
sts o
f effe
ctiv
e ju
dici
al p
rote
ctio
n of
the
right
s and
inte
rest
s of t
he a
pplic
ant
It is
only
if th
at c
ourt
or t
ribun
al c
onsid
ers
that
it is
in a
pos
ition
to c
arry
out
such
an
exam
inat
ion
sole
ly o
n th
e ba
sis o
f the
info
rmat
ion
in th
e ca
se-
file
incl
udin
g w
here
app
licab
le t
he re
port
or t
rans
crip
t of t
he p
erso
nal i
nter
view
with
the
appl
ican
t in
the
proc
edur
e at
firs
t ins
tanc
e th
at it
may
dec
ide
not t
o he
ar th
e ap
plic
ant i
n th
e ap
peal
bef
ore
it In
such
ci
rcum
stan
ces
the
poss
ibili
ty o
f not
hol
ding
a h
earin
g is
in th
e in
tere
st o
f bot
h th
e M
embe
r Sta
tes a
nd
appl
ican
ts a
s ref
erre
d to
in re
cita
l 18
of D
irect
ive
2013
32
to h
ave
a de
cisio
n m
ade
as so
on a
s pos
sible
on
app
licat
ions
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n w
ithou
t pre
judi
ce to
an
adeq
uate
and
com
plet
e ex
amin
atio
n be
ing
carr
ied
out
lsquo45
On
the
othe
r han
d if
the
cour
t or t
ribun
al h
earin
g th
e ap
peal
con
sider
s tha
t the
app
lican
t mus
t be
affo
rded
a h
earin
g in
ord
er to
car
ry o
ut th
e fu
ll an
d ex
nun
c ex
amin
atio
n re
quire
d th
at h
earin
g a
s or
dere
d by
that
cou
rt o
r trib
unal
con
stitu
tes a
n es
sent
ial p
roce
dura
l req
uire
men
t w
hich
can
not b
e di
spen
sed
with
on
grou
nds o
f spe
ed a
s ref
erre
d to
in re
cita
l 20
of D
irect
ive
2013
32
As t
he A
dvoc
ate
Gene
ral o
bser
ved
in p
oint
67
of h
is O
pini
on a
lthou
gh th
at re
cita
l allo
ws M
embe
r Sta
tes t
o ac
cele
rate
the
exam
inat
ion
proc
edur
e in
cer
tain
cas
es i
nter
alia
whe
re a
n ap
plic
atio
n is
likel
y to
be
unfo
unde
d it
doe
s no
t aut
horis
e th
e el
imin
atio
n of
pro
cedu
res w
hich
are
ess
entia
l in
orde
r to
guar
ante
e th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
righ
t to
effe
ctiv
e ju
dici
al p
rote
ctio
n
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 29
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo46
In th
e ca
se o
f a m
anife
stly
unf
ound
ed a
pplic
atio
n w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 3
2(2)
of D
irect
ive
2013
32
such
as t
he a
pplic
atio
n in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s th
e ob
ligat
ion
for t
he c
ourt
or t
ribun
al to
ca
rry
out t
he fu
ll an
d ex
nun
c ex
amin
atio
n re
ferr
ed to
in A
rtic
le 4
6(3)
of t
he d
irect
ive
is in
prin
cipl
e
fulfi
lled
whe
re th
at c
ourt
or t
ribun
al ta
kes i
nto
cons
ider
atio
n th
e pl
eadi
ngs s
ubm
itted
to th
e co
urt o
r tr
ibun
al se
ised
of th
e ap
plic
atio
n an
d of
the
obje
ctiv
e in
form
atio
n co
ntai
ned
in th
e ad
min
istra
tive
file
in th
e pr
ocee
ding
s at f
irst i
nsta
nce
incl
udin
g w
here
app
licab
le t
he re
port
or r
ecor
ding
of t
he p
erso
nal
inte
rvie
w c
ondu
cted
in th
ose
proc
eedi
ngs
lsquo47
Tha
t con
clus
ion
is su
ppor
ted
by th
e ca
se-la
w o
f the
Eur
opea
n Co
urt o
f Hum
an R
ight
s to
the
effe
ct
that
ther
e is
no n
eed
for a
hea
ring
whe
re th
e ca
se d
oes n
ot ra
ise a
ny q
uest
ions
of f
act o
r law
that
can
not
be a
dequ
atel
y re
solv
ed b
y re
ferr
ing
to th
e fil
e an
d th
e w
ritte
n su
bmiss
ions
of t
he p
artie
s
lsquo48
Mor
eove
r w
hile
Art
icle
46
of D
irect
ive
2013
32
does
not
requ
ire a
cou
rt o
r trib
unal
hea
ring
an
appe
al a
gain
st a
dec
ision
reje
ctin
g an
app
licat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n to
hea
r the
app
lican
t in
all c
ircum
stan
ces
it d
oes n
ot n
onet
hele
ss a
utho
rise
the
natio
nal l
egisl
atur
e to
pre
vent
that
cou
rt o
r tr
ibun
al o
rder
ing
that
a h
earin
g be
hel
d w
here
hav
ing
foun
d th
at th
e in
form
atio
n ga
ther
ed d
urin
g th
e pe
rson
al in
terv
iew
con
duct
ed in
the
proc
edur
e at
firs
t ins
tanc
e is
insu
ffici
ent
it co
nsid
ers i
t nec
essa
ry to
co
nduc
t a h
earin
g to
ens
ure
that
ther
e is
a fu
ll an
d ex
nun
c ex
amin
atio
n of
bot
h fa
cts a
nd p
oint
s of l
aw a
s re
quire
d un
der A
rtic
le 4
6(3)
of t
he d
irect
ive
lsquo49
In th
e lig
ht o
f the
fore
goin
g co
nsid
erat
ions
Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
2 in
par
ticul
ar A
rtic
les 1
2 1
4 3
1 an
d 46
th
ereo
f re
ad in
the
light
of A
rtic
le 4
7 of
the
Char
ter
mus
t be
inte
rpre
ted
as n
ot p
recl
udin
g th
e na
tiona
l co
urt o
r trib
unal
hea
ring
an a
ppea
l aga
inst
a d
ecisi
on re
ject
ing
a m
anife
stly
unf
ound
ed a
pplic
atio
n fo
r in
tern
atio
nal p
rote
ctio
n fr
om d
ismiss
ing
the
appe
al w
ithou
t hea
ring
the
appl
ican
t whe
re th
e fa
ctua
l ci
rcum
stan
ces l
eave
no
doub
t as t
o w
heth
er th
at d
ecisi
on w
as w
ell f
ound
ed o
n co
nditi
on th
at f
irst
durin
g th
e pr
ocee
ding
s at f
irst i
nsta
nce
the
appl
ican
t was
giv
en th
e op
port
unity
of a
per
sona
l int
ervi
ew
on h
is or
her
app
licat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n in
acc
orda
nce
with
Art
icle
14
of th
e di
rect
ive
and
th
e re
port
or t
rans
crip
t of t
he in
terv
iew
if a
n in
terv
iew
was
con
duct
ed w
as p
lace
d on
the
case
-file
in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith A
rtic
le 1
7(2)
of t
he d
irect
ive
and
sec
ond
the
cour
t hea
ring
the
appe
al m
ay o
rder
that
a
hear
ing
be c
ondu
cted
if it
con
sider
s it n
eces
sary
for t
he p
urpo
se o
f ens
urin
g th
at th
ere
is a
full
and
ex
nunc
exa
min
atio
n of
bot
h fa
cts a
nd p
oint
s of l
aw a
s req
uire
d un
der A
rtic
le 4
6(3)
of t
he d
irect
ive
rsquo
30 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
F v
Bevaacute
ndor
laacutesi
eacutes
Aacutella
mpo
lgaacuter
saacutegi
Hiv
atal
C-47
316
EUC
201
836
250
120
18
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ns th
e in
terp
reta
tion
of A
rtic
le 1
of t
he C
hart
er
of F
unda
men
tal R
ight
s of t
he E
urop
ean
Uni
on a
nd A
rtic
le 4
of D
irect
ive
2011
95
EU o
f the
Eur
opea
n Parliam
enta
ndofthe
Cou
ncilof13 De
cembe
r201
1on
stan
dardsforth
equ
alificatio
nofth
ird-cou
ntry
natio
nals
or st
atel
ess p
erso
ns a
s ben
efic
iarie
s of i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n fo
r a u
nifo
rm st
atus
for r
efug
ees
or fo
r per
sons
elig
ible
for s
ubsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
and
for t
he c
onte
nt o
f the
pro
tect
ion
gran
ted
Char
ter o
f Fun
dam
enta
l Rig
hts o
f the
Eur
opea
n U
nion
mdash A
rtic
le 7
mdash R
espe
ct fo
r priv
ate
and
fam
ily li
fe mdash
Di
rect
ive
2011
95
EU mdash
Sta
ndar
ds fo
r gra
ntin
g re
fuge
e st
atus
or s
ubsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
stat
us mdash
Fea
r of
pers
ecut
ion
on g
roun
ds o
f sex
ual o
rient
atio
n mdash
Art
icle
4 mdash
Ass
essm
ent o
f fac
ts a
nd c
ircum
stan
ces mdash
Re
cour
se to
an
expe
rtrsquos
repo
rt mdash
Psy
chol
ogic
al te
sts
Para
22
lsquo22Byde
cisio
nof1 Octob
er201
5th
eOfficere
jected
Frsquosap
plicationfora
sylumInthatre
gardalth
ough
it
cons
ider
ed th
at F
rsquos st
atem
ents
wer
e no
t fun
dam
enta
lly c
ontr
adic
tory
it n
onet
hele
ss c
oncl
uded
that
F
lack
ed c
redi
bilit
y on
the
basis
of a
n ex
pert
rsquos re
port
pre
pare
d by
a p
sych
olog
ist T
hat e
xper
trsquos re
port
en
taile
d an
exp
lora
tory
exa
min
atio
n a
n ex
amin
atio
n of
per
sona
lity
and
seve
ral p
erso
nalit
y te
sts
nam
ely
the
lsquoDra
w-A
-Per
son-
In-T
he-R
ainrsquo
test
and
the
Rors
chac
h an
d Sz
ondi
test
s a
nd c
oncl
uded
that
it w
as n
ot
poss
ible
to c
onfir
m F
rsquos as
sert
ion
rela
ting
to h
is se
xual
orie
ntat
ion
rsquo
Para
33
lsquo33
Tha
t sai
d it
mus
t be
note
d th
at A
rtic
le 4
(3) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
119
5 lis
ts th
e fa
ctor
s whi
ch th
e co
mpe
tent
au
thor
ities
mus
t tak
e in
to a
ccou
nt d
urin
g th
e in
divi
dual
ass
essm
ent o
f an
appl
icat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal
prot
ectio
n an
d th
at A
rtic
le 4
(5) o
f tha
t dire
ctiv
e sp
ecifi
es th
e co
nditi
ons u
nder
whi
ch a
Mem
ber S
tate
ap
plyi
ng th
e pr
inci
ple
that
it is
the
duty
of t
he a
pplic
ant t
o su
bsta
ntia
te h
is ap
plic
atio
n m
ust c
onsid
er
that
cer
tain
asp
ects
of t
he a
pplic
antrsquos
stat
emen
ts d
o no
t req
uire
con
firm
atio
n T
hose
con
ditio
ns in
clud
e
in p
artic
ular
the
fact
that
the
appl
ican
trsquos st
atem
ents
are
foun
d to
be
cohe
rent
and
pla
usib
le a
nd d
o no
t ru
n co
unte
r to
avai
labl
e sp
ecifi
c an
d ge
nera
l inf
orm
atio
n re
leva
nt to
his
case
as w
ell a
s the
fact
that
the
appl
ican
trsquos g
ener
al c
redi
bilit
y ha
s bee
n es
tabl
ished
rsquo
Para
35
lsquo35
Nev
erth
eles
s th
e pr
oced
ures
sho
uld
reco
urse
be
had
in th
at c
onte
xt t
o an
exp
ertrsquos
repo
rt m
ust b
e co
nsist
ent w
ith o
ther
rele
vant
EU
law
pro
visio
ns a
nd in
par
ticul
ar w
ith th
e fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts g
uara
ntee
d by
the
Char
ter
such
as t
he ri
ght t
o re
spec
t for
hum
an d
igni
ty e
nshr
ined
in A
rtic
le 1
of t
he C
hart
er a
nd
the
right
to re
spec
t for
priv
ate
and
fam
ily li
fe g
uara
ntee
d by
Art
icle
7 th
ereo
frsquo
A an
d O
ther
s C-
148
13 to
C-1
501
3
2 De
cembe
r2014
X an
d O
ther
s C-
199
12 to
C-2
011
2
7 No
vembe
r2013
Shep
herd
C-4
721
3
26 Fe
bruary2015
MC-560149 Fe
bruary
2017
Tem
pelm
an a
nd va
n Sc
haijk
C-9
603
and
C-970310 March2005
CHEZ
Raz
pred
elen
ie
Bulg
aria
C-8
314
16 Ju
ly2015
N C
-601
15
PPU
15 Fe
bruary2016
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 31
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
41
lsquo41
It is
app
aren
t se
cond
ly fr
om A
rtic
le 4
of t
hat d
irect
ive
that
the
exam
inat
ion
of th
e ap
plic
atio
n fo
r in
tern
atio
nal p
rote
ctio
n m
ust i
nclu
de a
n in
divi
dual
ass
essm
ent o
f tha
t app
licat
ion
taki
ng in
to a
ccou
nt
inte
r alia
all
rele
vant
fact
s as t
hey
rela
te to
the
coun
try
of o
rigin
of t
he a
pplic
ant a
t the
tim
e of
taki
ng
a de
cisio
n on
the
appl
icat
ion
the
rele
vant
stat
emen
ts a
nd d
ocum
enta
tion
pres
ente
d by
him
as w
ell a
s hi
s ind
ivid
ual p
ositi
on a
nd p
erso
nal c
ircum
stan
ces
Whe
re n
eces
sary
the
com
pete
nt a
utho
rity
mus
t also
ta
ke a
ccou
nt o
f the
exp
lana
tion
prov
ided
rega
rdin
g a
lack
of e
vide
nce
and
of t
he a
pplic
antrsquos
gen
eral
cr
edib
ility
rsquo
Para
46
lsquo46
In th
e lig
ht o
f tho
se c
onsid
erat
ions
the
ans
wer
to th
e se
cond
que
stio
n is
that
Art
icle
4 o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
119
5 m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
d as
mea
ning
that
it d
oes n
ot p
recl
ude
the
auth
ority
resp
onsib
le fo
r exa
min
ing
appl
icat
ions
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n o
r w
here
an
actio
n ha
s bee
n br
ough
t aga
inst
a d
ecisi
on o
f tha
t au
thor
ity t
he c
ourt
or t
ribun
al se
ised
from
ord
erin
g th
at a
n ex
pert
rsquos re
port
be
obta
ined
in th
e co
ntex
t of
the
asse
ssm
ent o
f the
fact
s and
circ
umst
ance
s rel
atin
g to
the
decl
ared
sexu
al o
rient
atio
n of
an
appl
ican
t pr
ovid
ed th
at th
e pr
oced
ures
for s
uch
arep
ort a
re c
onsis
tent
with
the
fund
amen
tal r
ight
s gua
rant
eed
by th
e Ch
arte
r th
at th
at a
utho
rity
and
thos
e co
urts
or t
ribun
als d
o no
t bas
e th
eir d
ecisi
on so
lely
on
the
conc
lusio
ns o
f the
exp
ertrsquos
repo
rt a
nd th
at th
ey a
re n
ot b
ound
by
thos
e co
nclu
sions
whe
n as
sess
ing
the
appl
ican
trsquos st
atem
ents
rela
ting
to h
is se
xual
orie
ntat
ion
rsquo
Para
54
lsquo54
In th
ose
circ
umst
ance
s a
s the
Adv
ocat
e Ge
nera
l not
ed in
poi
nt 4
3 of
his
Opi
nion
the
pre
para
tion
and
use
of a
psy
chol
ogist
rsquos ex
pert
repo
rt su
ch a
s tha
t at i
ssue
in th
e m
ain
proc
eedi
ngs c
onst
itute
s an
inte
rfere
nce
with
that
per
sonrsquo
s rig
ht to
resp
ect f
or h
is pr
ivat
e lif
ersquo
Para
58
lsquo58
In th
is re
spec
t it
shou
ld b
e no
ted
that
the
suita
bilit
y of
an
expe
rtrsquos
repo
rt su
ch a
s tha
t at i
ssue
in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s may
be
acce
pted
onl
y if
it is
base
d on
suffi
cien
tly re
liabl
e m
etho
ds a
nd p
rinci
ples
in
the
light
of t
he st
anda
rds r
ecog
nise
d by
the
inte
rnat
iona
l sci
entif
ic c
omm
unity
It s
houl
d be
not
ed in
th
at re
gard
that
alth
ough
it is
not
for t
he C
ourt
to ru
le o
n th
is iss
ue w
hich
is a
s an
asse
ssm
ent o
f the
fa
cts
a m
atte
r with
in th
e na
tiona
l cou
rtrsquos
juris
dict
ion
the
relia
bilit
y of
such
an
expe
rtrsquos
repo
rt h
as b
een
vigo
rous
ly c
onte
sted
by
the
Fren
ch a
nd N
ethe
rland
s Gov
ernm
ents
as w
ell a
s by
the
Com
miss
ion
rsquo
32 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
62
lsquo62
It is
also
nec
essa
ry to
take
acc
ount
in
orde
r to
asse
ss th
e se
rious
ness
of t
he in
terfe
renc
e ar
ising
from
th
e pr
epar
atio
n an
d us
e of
a p
sych
olog
istrsquos
expe
rt re
port
suc
h as
that
at i
ssue
in th
e m
ain
proc
eedi
ngs
of
Prin
cipl
e 18
of t
he Y
ogya
kart
a pr
inci
ples
on
the
appl
icat
ion
of In
tern
atio
nal H
uman
Rig
hts L
aw in
rela
tion
to S
exua
l Orie
ntat
ion
and
Gend
er Id
entit
y to
whi
ch th
e Fr
ench
and
Net
herla
nds G
over
nmen
ts h
ave
refe
rred
whi
ch st
ates
int
er a
lia t
hat n
o pe
rson
may
be
forc
ed to
und
ergo
any
form
of p
sych
olog
ical
test
on
acc
ount
of h
is se
xual
orie
ntat
ion
or g
ende
r ide
ntity
rsquo
Para
66
lsquo66
On
the
one
hand
the
car
ryin
g ou
t of a
per
sona
l int
ervi
ew c
ondu
cted
by
the
pers
onne
l of t
he
dete
rmin
ing
auth
ority
is su
ch a
s to
cont
ribut
e to
the
asse
ssm
ent o
f tho
se st
atem
ents
ina
smuc
h as
bot
h Ar
ticle
13(
3)(a
) of D
irect
ive
2005
85
and
Artic
le 1
5(3)
(a) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
2 pr
ovid
e th
at th
e M
embe
r St
ates
mus
t ens
ure
that
the
pers
on w
ho c
ondu
cts t
he in
terv
iew
is c
ompe
tent
to ta
ke a
ccou
nt o
f the
pe
rson
al c
ircum
stan
ces s
urro
undi
ng th
e ap
plic
atio
n th
ose
circ
umst
ance
s cov
erin
g in
par
ticul
ar th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
sexu
al o
rient
atio
nrsquo
Para
71
lsquo71
It fo
llow
s fro
m th
e fo
rego
ing
that
the
answ
er to
the
first
que
stio
n is
that
Art
icle
4 o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
119
5 re
ad in
the
light
of A
rtic
le 7
of t
he C
hart
er m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
d as
pre
clud
ing
the
prep
arat
ion
and
use
in o
rder
to a
sses
s the
ver
acity
of a
cla
im m
ade
by a
n ap
plic
ant f
or in
tern
atio
nal p
rote
ctio
n co
ncer
ning
his
sexu
al o
rient
atio
n o
f a p
sych
olog
istrsquos
expe
rt re
port
suc
h as
that
at i
ssue
in th
e m
ain
proc
eedi
ngs
the
purp
ose
of w
hich
is o
n th
e ba
sis o
f pro
ject
ive
pers
onal
ity te
sts
to p
rovi
de a
n in
dica
tion
of th
e se
xual
orie
ntat
ion
of th
at a
pplic
antrsquo
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 33
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
A an
d S
v St
aats
secr
etar
is v
an
Veili
ghei
d en
Just
itie
C-55
016
EUC
201
824
8
120
420
18
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ns th
e in
terp
reta
tion
of A
rtic
le 2
(f) o
f Cou
ncil
Directive20
0386EC
of2
2 Septem
ber2
003on
therig
htto
familyre
unificatio
n
Righ
t to
fam
ily re
unifi
catio
n mdash
Dire
ctiv
e 20
038
6EC
mdash D
efin
ition
of lsquo
unac
com
pani
ed m
inor
rsquo mdashRi
ght
of a
refu
gee
to fa
mily
reun
ifica
tion
with
his
pare
nts mdash
Ref
ugee
bel
ow th
e ag
e of
18
at th
e tim
e of
ent
ry
into
the
Mem
ber S
tate
and
at t
he ti
me
of a
pplic
atio
n fo
r asy
lum
but
ove
r 18
at th
e tim
e of
the
deci
sion
gran
ting
asyl
um a
nd o
f his
appl
icat
ion
for f
amily
reun
ifica
tion
mdash R
elev
ant d
ate
for a
sses
sing
lsquomin
orrsquo s
tatu
s of
the
pers
on c
once
rned
Para
34
lsquo34
Whe
reas
und
er A
rtic
le 4
(2)(a
) of D
irect
ive
2003
86
the
poss
ibili
ty o
f suc
h re
unifi
catio
n is
in
prin
cipl
e le
ft to
the
disc
retio
n of
eac
h M
embe
r Sta
te a
nd su
bjec
t in
par
ticul
ar t
o th
e co
nditi
on th
at fi
rst-
degr
ee re
lativ
es in
the
dire
ct a
scen
ding
line
are
dep
ende
nt u
pon
the
spon
sor a
nd d
o no
t enj
oy p
rope
r fa
mily
supp
ort i
n th
e co
untr
y of
orig
in A
rtic
le 1
0(3)
(a) o
f tha
t dire
ctiv
e la
ys d
own
by
way
of e
xcep
tion
to th
at p
rinci
ple
a ri
ght t
o su
ch re
unifi
catio
n fo
r ref
ugee
s who
are
una
ccom
pani
ed m
inor
s whi
ch is
no
t sub
ject
to a
mar
gin
of d
iscre
tion
on th
e pa
rt o
f the
Mem
ber S
tate
s nor
to c
ondi
tions
laid
dow
n in
Ar
ticle
4(2
)(a)rsquo
Para
44
lsquo44
Fin
ally
Dire
ctiv
e 20
038
6 pu
rsue
s not
onl
y in
a g
ener
al w
ay t
he o
bjec
tive
of p
rom
otin
g fa
mily
re
unifi
catio
n an
d gr
antin
g pr
otec
tion
to th
ird-c
ount
ry n
atio
nals
in p
artic
ular
min
ors (
see
to th
at e
ffect
judg
men
tof6
Decem
ber2
012O
and
Oth
ers
C-3
561
1 an
d C-
357
11 E
UC
201
277
6 p
arag
raph
69)
but
by
Art
icle
10(
3)(a
) the
reof
see
ks sp
ecifi
cally
to g
uara
ntee
an
addi
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
for t
hose
refu
gees
who
ar
e un
acco
mpa
nied
min
orsrsquo
Para
55
lsquo55
In th
ose
circ
umst
ance
s to
mak
e th
e rig
ht to
fam
ily re
unifi
catio
n un
der A
rtic
le 1
0(3)
(a) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
038
6 de
pend
upo
n th
e m
omen
t at w
hich
the
com
pete
nt n
atio
nal a
utho
rity
form
ally
ado
pts t
he
deci
sion
reco
gnisi
ng th
e re
fuge
e st
atus
of t
he p
erso
n co
ncer
ned
and
ther
efor
e o
n ho
w q
uick
ly o
r slo
wly
th
e ap
plic
atio
n fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
is pr
oces
sed
by th
at a
utho
rity
wou
ld c
all i
nto
ques
tion
the
effe
ctiv
enes
s of t
hat p
rovi
sion
and
wou
ld g
o ag
ains
t not
onl
y th
e ai
m o
f tha
t dire
ctiv
e w
hich
is to
pr
omot
e fa
mily
reun
ifica
tion
and
to g
rant
in th
at re
gard
a sp
ecifi
c pr
otec
tion
to re
fuge
es i
n pa
rtic
ular
un
acco
mpa
nied
min
ors
but
also
the
prin
cipl
es o
f equ
al tr
eatm
ent a
nd le
gal c
erta
inty
rsquo
Ouh
ram
i C-
225
16
26 Ju
ly2017
O a
nd O
ther
s C-
356
11
and
C-35
711
6 De
cembe
r2012
Noor
zia C
-338
13
17 Ju
ly2014
HTC-3731324 June
20
15
34 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
58
lsquo58
Mor
eove
r in
stea
d of
pro
mpt
ing
natio
nal a
utho
ritie
s to
trea
t app
licat
ions
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n fr
om u
nacc
ompa
nied
min
ors u
rgen
tly in
ord
er to
take
acc
ount
of t
heir
part
icul
ar v
ulne
rabi
lity
a p
ossib
ility
w
hich
is a
lread
y ex
plic
itly
offe
red
by A
rtic
le 3
1(7)
(b) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
2 su
ch a
n in
terp
reta
tion
coul
d ha
ve th
e op
posit
e ef
fect
fru
stra
ting
the
obje
ctiv
e pu
rsue
d bo
th b
y th
at d
irect
ive
and
by D
irect
ives
20
038
6 an
d 20
119
5 of
ens
urin
g th
at i
n ac
cord
ance
with
Art
icle
24(
2) o
f the
Cha
rter
of F
unda
men
tal
Righ
ts t
he b
est i
nter
ests
of t
he c
hild
is in
pra
ctic
e a
prim
ary
cons
ider
atio
n fo
r Mem
ber S
tate
s in
the
appl
icat
ion
of th
ose
dire
ctiv
esrsquo
Para
64
lsquo64
In th
e lig
ht o
f all
the
fore
goin
g th
e an
swer
to th
e qu
estio
n re
ferr
ed is
that
Art
icle
2(f)
of D
irect
ive
2003
86
read
in c
onju
nctio
n w
ith A
rtic
le 1
0(3)
(a) t
here
of m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
d as
mea
ning
that
a th
ird-
coun
try
natio
nal o
r sta
tele
ss p
erso
n w
ho is
bel
ow th
e ag
e of
18
at th
e m
omen
t of h
is or
her
ent
ry in
to th
e te
rrito
ry o
f a M
embe
r Sta
te a
nd o
f the
intr
oduc
tion
of h
is or
her
asy
lum
app
licat
ion
in th
at S
tate
but
who
in
the
cour
se o
f the
asy
lum
pro
cedu
re a
ttai
ns th
e ag
e of
maj
ority
and
is th
erea
fter g
rant
ed re
fuge
e st
atus
m
ust b
e re
gard
ed a
s a lsquom
inor
rsquo for
the
purp
oses
of t
hat p
rovi
sion
rsquo
CJEU
[GC]
MP
v Se
cret
ary
of
Stat
e fo
r the
Hom
e De
part
men
t
C-35
316
EUC
201
827
6
240
420
18
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
s 2(e
) and
15(
b)
ofCou
ncilDirective20
0483EC
of2
9 Ap
ril200
4on
minim
umstan
dardsforth
equ
alificatio
nan
dstatusof
third
cou
ntry
nat
iona
ls or
stat
eles
s per
sons
as r
efug
ees o
r as p
erso
ns w
ho o
ther
wise
nee
d in
tern
atio
nal
prot
ectio
n an
d th
e co
nten
t of t
he p
rote
ctio
n gr
ante
d
Asyl
um p
olic
y mdash
Cha
rter
of F
unda
men
tal R
ight
s of t
he E
urop
ean
Uni
on mdash
Art
icle
4 mdash
Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3EC
mdash A
rtic
le 2
(e) mdash
Elig
ibili
ty fo
r sub
sidia
ry p
rote
ctio
n mdash
Art
icle
15(
b) mdash
Risk
of s
erio
us h
arm
to th
e ps
ycho
logi
cal h
ealth
of t
he a
pplic
ant i
f ret
urne
d to
the
coun
try
of o
rigin
mdash P
erso
n w
ho h
as b
een
tort
ured
in
the
coun
try
of o
rigin
Para
30
lsquo30
In th
at c
onte
xt i
t mus
t firs
t be
poin
ted
out t
hat t
he fa
ct th
at th
e pe
rson
con
cern
ed h
as in
the
past
be
en to
rtur
ed b
y th
e au
thor
ities
of h
is co
untr
y of
orig
in is
not
in it
self
suffi
cien
t jus
tific
atio
n fo
r him
to b
e el
igib
le fo
r sub
sidia
ry p
rote
ctio
n w
hen
ther
e is
no lo
nger
a re
al ri
sk th
at su
ch to
rtur
e w
ill b
e re
peat
ed if
he
is re
turn
ed to
that
cou
ntry
rsquo
Moh
amed
MrsquoB
odj
v Eacutet
at b
elge
C-5421318 De
cembe
r20
14
Aranyosi an
d Că
ldăraru
C-
404
15 a
nd
C-65915PPU
5 April
2016
CK a
nd O
ther
s v
Repu
blika
Slo
veni
ja
C-57
816
PPU
16 Fe
bruary2017
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 35
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
s 3
6-58
lsquo36
In th
at re
gard
it s
houl
d be
reca
lled
that
Art
icle
15(
b) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3 m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
d an
d ap
plie
d in
a m
anne
r tha
t is c
onsis
tent
with
the
right
s gua
rant
eed
by A
rtic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
er o
f Fu
ndam
enta
l Rig
hts o
f the
Eur
opea
n U
nion
(lsquoth
e Ch
arte
rrsquo)
whi
ch e
nshr
ines
one
of t
he fu
ndam
enta
l va
lues
of t
he U
nion
and
its M
embe
r Sta
tes a
nd is
abs
olut
e in
that
that
val
ue is
clo
sely
link
ed to
resp
ect f
or
hum
an d
igni
ty t
he su
bjec
t of A
rtic
le 1
of t
he C
hart
er
lsquo37
Mor
eove
r it
shou
ld b
e re
calle
d th
at i
n ac
cord
ance
with
Art
icle
52(
3) o
f the
Cha
rter
in
so fa
r as
the
right
s gua
rant
eed
by A
rtic
le 4
ther
eof c
orre
spon
d to
thos
e gu
aran
teed
by
Artic
le 3
of t
he E
CHR
the
mea
ning
and
scop
e of
thos
e rig
hts a
re th
e sa
me
as th
ose
laid
dow
n by
Art
icle
3 o
f the
ECH
R
lsquo38
It f
ollo
ws f
rom
the
case
-law
of t
he E
urop
ean
Cour
t of H
uman
Rig
hts r
elat
ing
to A
rtic
le 3
of t
he E
CHR
that
the
suffe
ring
caus
ed b
y a
natu
rally
occ
urrin
g ill
ness
whe
ther
phy
sical
or m
enta
l m
ay b
e co
vere
d by
that
art
icle
if it
is o
r risk
s bei
ng e
xace
rbat
ed b
y tr
eatm
ent
whe
ther
resu
lting
from
con
ditio
ns o
f de
tent
ion
rem
oval
or o
ther
mea
sure
s fo
r whi
ch th
e au
thor
ities
can
be
held
resp
onsib
le p
rovi
ded
that
th
e re
sulti
ng su
fferin
g at
tain
s the
min
imum
leve
l of s
ever
ity re
quire
d by
that
art
icle
lsquo39
Pur
suan
t to
the
case
-law
of t
he E
urop
ean
Cour
t of H
uman
Rig
hts
the
sam
e th
resh
old
of se
verit
y m
ust b
e m
et in
ord
er fo
r Art
icle
3 o
f the
ECH
R to
pre
clud
e th
e de
port
atio
n of
a p
erso
n w
hose
illn
ess i
s no
t nat
ural
ly o
ccur
ring
whe
re th
e la
ck o
f car
e th
at w
ould
be
avai
labl
e to
that
per
son
onc
e ex
pelle
d is
not
at
trib
utab
le to
inte
ntio
nal a
cts o
r om
issio
ns o
f the
rece
ivin
g St
ate
lsquo40
As r
egar
ds s
peci
fical
ly th
e th
resh
old
of se
verit
y fo
r fin
ding
a v
iola
tion
of A
rtic
le 3
of t
he E
CHR
it
follo
ws f
rom
the
mos
t rec
ent c
ase-
law
of t
he E
urop
ean
Cour
t of H
uman
Rig
hts t
hat t
hat p
rovi
sion
prec
lude
s the
rem
oval
of a
serio
usly
ill p
erso
n w
here
he
is at
risk
of i
mm
inen
t dea
th o
r whe
re su
bsta
ntia
l gr
ound
s hav
e be
en sh
own
for b
elie
ving
that
alth
ough
not
at i
mm
inen
t risk
of d
ying
he
wou
ld fa
ce a
real
ris
k o
n ac
coun
t of t
he a
bsen
ce o
f app
ropr
iate
trea
tmen
t in
the
rece
ivin
g co
untr
y or
the
lack
of a
cces
s to
such
trea
tmen
t of
suffe
ring
a se
rious
rap
id a
nd ir
reve
rsib
le d
eclin
e in
his
stat
e of
hea
lth re
sulti
ng in
in
tens
e su
fferin
g or
to a
sign
ifica
nt re
duct
ion
in li
fe e
xpec
tanc
y
ECtH
R P
apos
hvili
v
Belg
ium
no 4173810
13 Decem
ber2
016
ECtH
R [G
C] S
HH
v Un
ited
King
dom
no
603671029 Janu
ary
2013
Abdi
da C
-562
13
18 Decem
ber2
014
36 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo41
Sim
ilarly
Art
icle
4 o
f the
Cha
rter
mus
t be
inte
rpre
ted
as m
eani
ng th
at th
e re
mov
al o
f a th
ird
coun
try
natio
nal w
ith a
par
ticul
arly
serio
us m
enta
l or p
hysic
al il
lnes
s con
stitu
tes i
nhum
an a
nd
degr
adin
g tr
eatm
ent
with
in th
e m
eani
ng o
f tha
t art
icle
whe
re su
ch re
mov
al w
ould
resu
lt in
a re
al
and
dem
onst
rabl
e ris
k of
sign
ifica
nt a
nd p
erm
anen
t det
erio
ratio
n in
the
stat
e of
hea
lth o
f the
pe
rson
con
cerned
(see
byan
alog
yjudg
men
tof1
6 Februa
ry201
7C
K a
nd O
ther
s C
-578
16
PPU
EU
C2
017
127
par
agra
ph 7
4) T
he sa
me
conc
lusio
n ca
n be
dra
wn
as re
gard
s the
app
licat
ion
of
Artic
le 1
9(2)
of t
he C
hart
er w
hich
pro
vide
s tha
t no
one
may
be
rem
oved
to a
Sta
te w
here
ther
e is
a se
rious
risk
that
he
wou
ld b
e su
bjec
ted
to in
hum
an o
r deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent
lsquo42
In
that
rega
rd t
he C
ourt
has
hel
d th
at p
artic
ular
ly in
the
case
of a
serio
us p
sych
iatr
ic il
lnes
s it
is
not s
uffic
ient
to c
onsid
er o
nly
the
cons
eque
nces
of p
hysic
ally
tran
spor
ting
the
pers
on c
once
rned
from
a
Mem
ber S
tate
to a
third
cou
ntry
rat
her
it is
nece
ssar
y to
con
sider
all
the
signi
fican
t and
per
man
ent
conseq
uencesth
atm
ightarisefrom
theremoval(see
byan
alog
yjudg
men
tof1
6 Februa
ry201
7C
K
and
Oth
ers
C-5
781
6 PP
U E
UC
201
712
7 p
arag
raph
76)
Mor
eove
r gi
ven
the
fund
amen
tal i
mpo
rtan
ce
of th
e pr
ohib
ition
of t
ortu
re a
nd in
hum
an o
r deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent l
aid
dow
n in
Art
icle
4 o
f the
Cha
rter
pa
rtic
ular
att
entio
n m
ust b
e pa
id to
the
spec
ific
vuln
erab
ilitie
s of p
erso
ns w
hose
psy
chol
ogic
al su
fferin
g
whi
ch is
like
ly to
be
exac
erba
ted
in th
e ev
ent o
f the
ir re
mov
al i
s a c
onse
quen
ce o
f tor
ture
or i
nhum
an o
r de
grad
ing
trea
tmen
t in
thei
r cou
ntry
of o
rigin
lsquo43
It f
ollo
ws t
hat A
rtic
le 4
and
Art
icle
19(
2) o
f the
Cha
rter
as i
nter
pret
ed in
the
light
of A
rtic
le 3
of t
he
ECHR
pre
clud
e a
Mem
ber S
tate
from
exp
ellin
g a
third
cou
ntry
nat
iona
l whe
re su
ch e
xpul
sion
wou
ld
in e
ssen
ce r
esul
t in
signi
fican
t and
per
man
ent d
eter
iora
tion
of th
at p
erso
nrsquos m
enta
l hea
lth d
isord
ers
pa
rtic
ular
ly w
here
as i
n th
e pr
esen
t cas
e su
ch d
eter
iora
tion
wou
ld e
ndan
ger h
is lif
e
lsquo44
Mor
eove
r th
e Co
urt h
as p
revi
ously
hel
d th
at i
n su
ch e
xcep
tiona
l cas
es t
he re
mov
al o
f a th
ird
coun
try
natio
nal s
uffe
ring
from
a se
rious
illn
ess t
o a
coun
try
in w
hich
app
ropr
iate
trea
tmen
t is n
ot
avai
labl
e m
ay c
onst
itute
an
infr
inge
men
t of t
he p
rinci
ple
of n
on-r
efou
lem
ent a
nd t
here
fore
an
infr
inge
men
t of A
rtic
le 5
of D
irect
ive
2008
115
rea
d in
the
light
of A
rtic
le 1
9 of
the
Char
ter
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 37
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo45
Nev
erth
eles
s it
is a
ppar
ent f
rom
the
requ
est f
or a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g th
at th
e re
leva
nt n
atio
nal c
ourt
s ha
ve h
eld
that
Art
icle
3 o
f the
ECH
R pr
eclu
des M
P be
ing
rem
oved
from
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
to S
ri La
nka
Th
us th
e pr
esen
t cas
e do
es n
ot c
once
rn th
e pr
otec
tion
agai
nst r
emov
al d
eriv
ing
und
er A
rtic
le 3
of t
he
ECHR
fro
m th
e pr
ohib
ition
on
expo
sing
a pe
rson
to in
hum
an o
r deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent
but r
athe
r the
se
para
te is
sue
as to
whe
ther
the
host
Mem
ber S
tate
is re
quire
d to
gra
nt su
bsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
stat
us
unde
r Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3 to
a th
ird c
ount
ry n
atio
nal w
ho h
as b
een
tort
ured
by
the
auth
oriti
es o
f his
coun
try
of o
rigin
and
suffe
rs se
vere
psy
chol
ogic
al a
fter-e
ffect
s whi
ch i
n th
e ev
ent o
f him
bei
ng re
turn
ed
to th
at c
ount
ry c
ould
be
subs
tant
ially
agg
rava
ted
and
lead
to a
serio
us ri
sk o
f him
com
mitt
ing
suic
ide
lsquo46
The
cou
rt h
as a
lso p
revi
ously
hel
d th
at th
e fa
ct th
at A
rtic
le 3
of t
he E
CHR
as o
bser
ved
in
para
grap
hs 3
9 to
41
abov
e p
recl
udes
in
very
exc
eptio
nal c
ases
a th
ird c
ount
ry n
atio
nal s
uffe
ring
from
a se
rious
illn
ess b
eing
rem
oved
to a
cou
ntry
in w
hich
app
ropr
iate
trea
tmen
t is n
ot a
vaila
ble
does
no
t mea
n th
at th
at p
erso
n sh
ould
be
gran
ted
leav
e to
resid
e in
a M
embe
r Sta
te b
y w
ay o
f sub
sidia
ry
prot
ectio
n un
der D
irect
ive
2004
83
lsquo47N
everthelessitshou
ldbeno
tedthatunlike
thecasegivingrisetoth
ejudgmento
f18 De
cembe
r20
14 M
rsquoBod
j (C-
542
13 E
UC
2014
245
2) w
hich
conc
erne
d a
third
coun
try
natio
nal w
ho h
ad b
een
the
vict
im
of a
n as
saul
t in
the
host
Mem
ber S
tate
the
pre
sent
case
conc
erns
a th
ird co
untr
y na
tiona
l who
was
tort
ured
by
the
auth
oriti
es o
f his
coun
try
of o
rigin
and
who
acc
ordi
ng to
dul
y su
bsta
ntia
ted
med
ical e
vide
nce
cont
inue
s as
a re
sult
of th
ose
acts
to
suffe
r fro
m p
ost-t
raum
atic
afte
r-effe
cts t
hat a
re lik
ely
to b
e sig
nific
antly
and
pe
rman
ently
exa
cerb
ated
to
the
poin
t of e
ndan
gerin
g hi
s life
if h
e is
retu
rned
to th
at co
untr
y
lsquo48
In
thos
e ci
rcum
stan
ces
bot
h th
e ca
use
of th
e cu
rren
t sta
te o
f hea
lth o
f a th
ird c
ount
ry n
atio
nal
in a
situ
atio
n su
ch a
s tha
t in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s n
amel
y ac
ts o
f tor
ture
infli
cted
by
the
auth
oriti
es
of h
is co
untr
y of
orig
in in
the
past
and
the
fact
that
if h
e w
ere
to b
e re
turn
ed to
his
coun
try
of o
rigin
hi
s men
tal h
ealth
diso
rder
s wou
ld b
e su
bsta
ntia
lly a
ggra
vate
d on
acc
ount
of t
he p
sych
olog
ical
trau
ma
that
he
cont
inue
s to
suffe
r as a
resu
lt of
that
tort
ure
are
rele
vant
fact
ors t
o be
take
n in
to a
ccou
nt w
hen
inte
rpre
ting
Artic
le 1
5(b)
of D
irect
ive
2004
83
lsquo49
Nev
erth
eles
s su
ch su
bsta
ntia
l agg
rava
tion
cann
ot i
n its
elf
be re
gard
ed a
s inh
uman
or d
egra
ding
tr
eatm
ent i
nflic
ted
on th
at th
ird c
ount
ry n
atio
nal i
n hi
s cou
ntry
of o
rigin
with
in th
e m
eani
ng o
f Ar
ticle
15(
b) o
f tha
t dire
ctiv
e
lsquo50
In
that
rega
rd i
t is a
ppro
pria
te to
exa
min
e a
s req
uest
ed in
the
orde
r for
refe
renc
e th
e ef
fect
that
may
re
sult
from
a la
ck i
n th
e co
untr
y of
orig
in o
f the
per
son
conc
erne
d o
f fac
ilitie
s offe
ring
appr
opria
te ca
re fo
r th
e ph
ysica
l and
men
tal a
fter-e
ffect
s res
ultin
g fro
m th
e to
rtur
e in
flict
ed b
y th
e au
thor
ities
of t
hat c
ount
ry
38 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo51
In th
at re
spec
t it
shou
ld b
e re
calle
d th
at th
e Co
urt h
as h
eld
that
the
serio
us h
arm
refe
rred
to in
Ar
ticle
15(
b) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3 ca
nnot
sim
ply
be th
e re
sult
of g
ener
al sh
ortc
omin
gs in
the
heal
th
syst
em o
f the
cou
ntry
of o
rigin
The
risk
of d
eter
iora
tion
in th
e he
alth
of a
third
cou
ntry
nat
iona
l who
is
suffe
ring
from
a se
rious
illn
ess
as a
resu
lt of
ther
e be
ing
no a
ppro
pria
te tr
eatm
ent i
n hi
s cou
ntry
of o
rigin
is
not s
uffic
ient
unl
ess t
hat t
hird
cou
ntry
nat
iona
l is i
nten
tiona
lly d
epriv
ed o
f hea
lth c
are
to w
arra
nt th
at
pers
on b
eing
gra
nted
subs
idia
ry p
rote
ctio
n
lsquo52
In o
rder
to a
sses
s whe
ther
a th
ird c
ount
ry n
atio
nal w
ho h
as in
the
past
bee
n to
rtur
ed b
y th
e au
thor
ities
of h
is co
untr
y of
orig
in f
aces
if r
etur
ned
to th
at c
ount
ry a
real
risk
of b
eing
inte
ntio
nally
de
priv
ed o
f app
ropr
iate
car
e fo
r the
phy
sical
and
men
tal a
fter-e
ffect
s res
ultin
g fr
om th
e to
rtur
e in
flict
ed
by th
ose
auth
oriti
es i
t is n
eces
sary
in
the
light
of w
hat h
as b
een
stat
ed in
par
agra
ph 5
0 ab
ove
and
reci
tal
25 o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3 w
hich
stat
es th
at th
e cr
iteria
for g
rant
ing
subs
idia
ry p
rote
ctio
n m
ust b
e dr
awn
from
inte
rnat
iona
l hum
an ri
ghts
inst
rum
ents
to
take
Art
icle
14
of th
e Co
nven
tion
agai
nst T
ortu
re in
to
cons
ider
atio
n
lsquo53
Acc
ordi
ng to
that
pro
visio
n S
tate
par
ties t
o th
at c
onve
ntio
n m
ust e
nsur
e th
at u
nder
thei
r leg
al
syst
ems
a v
ictim
of t
ortu
re h
as th
e rig
ht to
obt
ain
redr
ess
incl
udin
g th
e re
sour
ces n
eces
sary
to a
chie
ve a
s fu
ll a
reha
bilit
atio
n as
pos
sible
lsquo54
In th
at re
gard
it m
ust
how
ever
be
note
d th
at th
e re
gim
e in
trod
uced
by
Dire
ctiv
e 20
048
3 pu
rsue
s di
ffere
nt a
ims a
nd e
stab
lishe
s pro
tect
ion
mec
hani
sms w
hich
are
cle
arly
dist
inct
from
thos
e of
the
Conv
entio
n ag
ains
t Tor
ture
lsquo55
As i
s app
aren
t fro
m it
s six
th re
cital
and
Art
icle
2 th
e m
ain
obje
ctiv
e of
the
Conv
entio
n ag
ains
t Tor
ture
is
to m
ake
mor
e ef
fect
ive
the
stru
ggle
aga
inst
tort
ure
and
othe
r cru
el i
nhum
an o
r deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent
or p
unish
men
t thr
ough
out t
he w
orld
by
mea
ns o
f pre
vent
ion
How
ever
the
mai
n ob
ject
ive
of D
irect
ive
2004
83
as s
et o
ut in
its s
ixth
recit
al i
s on
the
one
hand
to
ensu
re th
at M
embe
r Sta
tes a
pply
com
mon
cr
iteria
for t
he id
entif
icatio
n of
per
sons
gen
uine
ly in
nee
d of
inte
rnat
iona
l pro
tect
ion
and
on
the
othe
r ha
nd t
o en
sure
that
a m
inim
um le
vel o
f ben
efits
is a
vaila
ble
for t
hose
per
sons
in a
ll M
embe
r Sta
tes
As
rega
rds
mor
e sp
ecifi
cally
the
ben
efici
arie
s of s
ubsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
stat
us t
hat d
irect
ive
aim
s to
offe
r w
ithin
th
e te
rrito
ry o
f the
Mem
ber S
tate
s pr
otec
tion
simila
r to
that
affo
rded
to re
fuge
es b
y th
e Co
nven
tion
rela
ting
toth
eStatusofR
efugeessig
nedinGen
evaon
28 July195
1(U
nite
d N
atio
ns T
reat
y Se
ries
Vol
189
p 1
50
No
2545
(195
4))
to p
erso
ns w
ho ca
nnot
be
rega
rded
as r
efug
ees b
ut a
re a
t risk
int
er a
lia o
f bei
ng su
bjec
ted
to to
rtur
e or
inhu
man
or d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t if r
etur
ned
to th
eir c
ount
ry o
f orig
in
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 39
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo56
Acc
ordi
ngly
it is
not
pos
sible
with
out d
isreg
ardi
ng th
e di
stin
ct a
reas
cov
ered
by
thos
e tw
o re
gim
es
for a
third
cou
ntry
nat
iona
l in
a sit
uatio
n su
ch a
s tha
t of M
P to
be
elig
ible
for s
ubsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
as
a re
sult
of e
very
vio
latio
n b
y hi
s Sta
te o
f orig
in o
f Art
icle
14
of th
e Co
nven
tion
agai
nst T
ortu
re
lsquo57
It is
ther
efor
e fo
r the
nat
iona
l cou
rt to
asc
erta
in i
n th
e lig
ht o
f all
curr
ent a
nd re
leva
nt in
form
atio
n
in p
artic
ular
repo
rts b
y in
tern
atio
nal o
rgan
isatio
ns a
nd n
on-g
over
nmen
tal h
uman
righ
ts o
rgan
isatio
ns
whe
ther
in
the
pres
ent c
ase
MP
is lik
ely
if re
turn
ed to
his
coun
try
of o
rigin
to
face
a ri
sk o
f bei
ng
inte
ntio
nally
dep
rived
of a
ppro
pria
te c
are
for t
he p
hysic
al a
nd m
enta
l afte
r-effe
cts r
esul
ting
from
the
tort
ure
he w
as su
bjec
ted
to b
y th
e au
thor
ities
of t
hat c
ount
ry T
hat w
ill b
e th
e ca
se i
nter
alia
if
in
circ
umst
ance
s whe
re a
s in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s a
third
cou
ntry
nat
iona
l is a
t risk
of c
omm
ittin
g su
icid
e be
caus
e of
the
trau
ma
resu
lting
from
the
tort
ure
he w
as su
bjec
ted
to b
y th
e au
thor
ities
of h
is co
untr
y of
orig
in i
t is c
lear
that
thos
e au
thor
ities
not
with
stan
ding
thei
r obl
igat
ion
unde
r Art
icle
14
of th
e Co
nven
tion
agai
nst T
ortu
re a
re n
ot p
repa
red
to p
rovi
de fo
r his
reha
bilit
atio
n T
here
will
also
be
such
a ri
sk
if it
is ap
pare
nt th
at th
e au
thor
ities
of t
hat c
ount
ry h
ave
adop
ted
a di
scrim
inat
ory
polic
y as
rega
rds a
cces
s to
hea
lth c
are
thus
mak
ing
it m
ore
diffi
cult
for c
erta
in e
thni
c gr
oups
or c
erta
in g
roup
s of i
ndiv
idua
ls o
f w
hich
MP
form
s par
t to
obt
ain
acce
ss to
app
ropr
iate
car
e fo
r the
phy
sical
and
men
tal a
fter-e
ffect
s of t
he
tort
ure
perp
etra
ted
by th
ose
auth
oriti
es
lsquo58
It f
ollo
ws f
rom
the
fore
goin
g th
at A
rtic
les 2
(e) a
nd 1
5(b)
of D
irect
ive
2004
83
read
in th
e lig
ht o
f Ar
ticle
4 o
f the
Cha
rter
mus
t be
inte
rpre
ted
as m
eani
ng th
at a
third
cou
ntry
nat
iona
l who
in th
e pa
st
has b
een
tort
ured
by
the
auth
oriti
es o
f his
coun
try
of o
rigin
and
no
long
er fa
ces a
risk
of b
eing
tort
ured
if
retu
rned
to th
at c
ount
ry b
ut w
hose
phy
sical
and
psy
chol
ogic
al h
ealth
cou
ld i
f so
retu
rned
ser
ious
ly
dete
riora
te l
eadi
ng to
a se
rious
risk
of h
im c
omm
ittin
g su
icid
e on
acc
ount
of t
raum
a re
sulti
ng fr
om
the
tort
ure
he w
as su
bjec
ted
to i
s elig
ible
for s
ubsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
if th
ere
is a
real
risk
of h
im b
eing
in
tent
iona
lly d
epriv
ed i
n hi
s cou
ntry
of o
rigin
of a
ppro
pria
te c
are
for t
he p
hysic
al a
nd m
enta
l afte
r-ef
fect
s of t
hat t
ortu
re t
hat b
eing
a m
atte
r for
the
natio
nal c
ourt
to d
eter
min
ersquo
40 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
[GC]
Serin
Alh
eto
v Za
mes
tnik
-pre
dsed
atel
na
Dar
zhav
na a
gent
sia
za b
ezha
ntsi
te
C-58
516
EUC
201
858
4
250
720
18
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
12(
1) o
f Directive20
1195EU
ofthe
Europ
eanParliam
enta
ndofthe
Cou
ncilof13 De
cembe
r201
1on
stan
dards
for t
he q
ualif
icat
ion
of th
ird-c
ount
ry n
atio
nals
or st
atel
ess p
erso
ns a
s ben
efic
iarie
s of i
nter
natio
nal
prot
ectio
n fo
r a u
nifo
rm st
atus
for r
efug
ees o
r for
per
sons
elig
ible
for s
ubsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
and
for t
he
cont
ent o
f the
pro
tect
ion
gran
ted
Com
mon
pol
icy
on a
sylu
m a
nd su
bsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
mdash S
tand
ards
for t
he q
ualif
icat
ion
of th
ird-c
ount
ry
natio
nals
or st
atel
ess p
erso
ns a
s ben
efic
iarie
s of i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n mdash
Dire
ctiv
e 20
119
5EU
mdash
Artic
le 1
2 mdash
Exc
lusio
n fr
om re
fuge
e st
atus
mdash P
erso
ns re
gist
ered
with
the
Uni
ted
Nat
ions
Rel
ief a
nd W
orks
Ag
ency
for P
ales
tine
Refu
gees
in th
e N
ear E
ast (
UN
RWA)
Para
14
rsquo14
Art
icle
12
of th
at d
irect
ive
whi
ch is
also
con
tain
ed in
Cha
pter
III
is en
title
d lsquoE
xclu
sionrsquo
and
pro
vide
s as
follo
ws
lsquo1
A
third
-cou
ntry
nat
iona
l or a
stat
eles
s per
son
is ex
clud
ed fr
om b
eing
a re
fuge
e if
(a)
h
e or
she
falls
with
in th
e sc
ope
of A
rtic
le 1
(D) o
f the
Gen
eva
Conv
entio
n re
latin
g to
pro
tect
ion
or a
ssist
ance
from
org
ans o
r age
ncie
s of t
he U
nite
d N
atio
ns o
ther
than
the
Uni
ted
Nat
ions
Hig
h Co
mm
issio
ner f
or R
efug
ees
Whe
n su
ch p
rote
ctio
n or
ass
istan
ce h
as c
ease
d fo
r any
reas
on w
ithou
t the
po
sitio
n of
such
per
sons
bei
ng d
efin
itely
sett
led
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith th
e re
leva
nt re
solu
tions
ado
pted
by
the
Gene
ral A
ssem
bly
of th
e U
nite
d N
atio
ns t
hose
per
sons
shal
l ips
o fa
cto
be e
ntitl
ed to
the
bene
fits o
f th
is Di
rect
ive
helliprsquo
Para
103
lsquo103
In
that
rega
rd i
t sho
uld
be n
oted
firs
t of a
ll th
at D
irect
ive
2013
32
dist
ingu
ishes
bet
wee
n th
e lsquod
eter
min
ing
auth
ority
rsquo whi
ch it
def
ines
in A
rtic
le 2
(f) a
s lsquoan
y qu
asi-j
udic
ial o
r adm
inist
rativ
e bo
dy in
a
Mem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
le fo
r exa
min
ing
appl
icat
ions
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n co
mpe
tent
to ta
ke
deci
sions
at f
irst i
nsta
nce
in su
ch c
ases
rsquo and
the
lsquocour
t or t
ribun
alrsquo r
efer
red
to in
Art
icle
46
The
pro
cedu
re
befo
re a
det
erm
inin
g au
thor
ity is
gov
erne
d by
the
prov
ision
s of C
hapt
er II
I of t
hat d
irect
ive
ent
itled
lsquoP
roce
dure
s at f
irst i
nsta
ncersquo
whi
le th
e pr
oced
ure
befo
re a
cou
rt o
r trib
unal
mus
t com
ply
with
the
rule
s la
id d
own
in C
hapt
er V
of t
hat d
irect
ive
ent
itled
lsquoApp
eals
proc
edur
esrsquo w
hich
is m
ade
up o
f Art
icle
46
rsquo
Cord
ero
Alon
so
C-81057 Sep
tembe
r20
06
VTB-
VAB
and
Gala
tea
C-
261
07 a
nd C
-299
07
23 April2
009
Abed
El K
arem
El K
ott
and
Oth
ers
C-36
411
19 Decem
ber2
012
Dom
ingu
ez C
-282
10
24 Janu
ary2012
Asso
ciatio
n de
m
eacutedia
tion
socia
le
C-1761215 Janu
ary
2014
Ambi
sigC-46157 Ju
ly
2016
Diak
iteacute C
-285
12
30 Janu
ary2014
Zh a
nd O
C-
554
13
11 Ju
ne2015
Jafa
riC-6461626 July
2017
Sack
oC-3481626 July
2017
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 41
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
107
lsquo107
In
the
abse
nce
of a
ny re
fere
nce
to th
e la
ws o
f the
Mem
ber S
tate
s a
nd h
avin
g re
gard
to th
e pu
rpos
e of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
2 se
t out
in re
cita
l 4 th
ereo
f th
ose
wor
ds m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
d an
d ap
plie
d in
a
unifo
rm m
anne
r M
oreo
ver
as re
cita
l 13
of th
at d
irect
ive
stat
es t
he a
ppro
xim
atio
n of
rule
s und
er th
at
dire
ctiv
e ai
ms t
o cr
eate
equ
ival
ent c
ondi
tions
for t
he a
pplic
atio
n of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
119
5 in
the
Mem
ber
Stat
es a
nd to
lim
it th
e m
ovem
ents
of a
pplic
ants
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n be
twee
n M
embe
r Sta
tesrsquo
Para
s 1
09-1
14
lsquo109
In
that
rega
rd a
part
from
the
fact
that
it p
ursu
es th
e ov
eral
l pur
pose
of e
stab
lishi
ng c
omm
on
proc
edur
al st
anda
rds
Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
2 se
eks i
n pa
rtic
ular
as i
s app
aren
t int
er a
lia fr
om re
cita
l 18
to
ens
ure
that
app
licat
ions
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n ar
e de
alt w
ith lsquoa
s soo
n as
pos
sible
hellip w
ithou
t pr
ejud
ice
to a
n ad
equa
te a
nd c
ompl
ete
exam
inat
ion
bein
g ca
rrie
d ou
trsquo
lsquo110
In
that
con
text
the
wor
ds lsquos
hall
ensu
re th
at a
n ef
fect
ive
rem
edy
prov
ides
for a
full
and
ex
nunc
exa
min
atio
n of
bot
h fa
cts a
nd p
oint
s of l
awrsquo m
ust
in o
rder
not
to d
epriv
e th
em o
f the
ir or
dina
ry
mea
ning
be
inte
rpre
ted
as m
eani
ng th
at th
e M
embe
r Sta
tes a
re re
quire
d b
y vi
rtue
of A
rtic
le 4
6(3)
of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
2 to
ord
er th
eir n
atio
nal l
aw in
such
a w
ay th
at th
e pr
oces
sing
of th
e ap
peal
s ref
erre
d to
in
clud
es a
n ex
amin
atio
n b
y th
e co
urt o
r trib
unal
of a
ll th
e fa
cts a
nd p
oint
s of l
aw n
eces
sary
in o
rder
to
mak
e an
up-
to-d
ate
asse
ssm
ent o
f the
cas
e at
han
d
lsquo111
In
that
rega
rd t
he e
xpre
ssio
n lsquoe
x nu
ncrsquo p
oint
s to
the
cour
t or t
ribun
alrsquos
oblig
atio
n to
mak
e an
as
sess
men
t tha
t tak
es in
to a
ccou
nt s
houl
d th
e ne
ed a
rise
new
evi
denc
e w
hich
has
com
e to
ligh
t afte
r the
ad
optio
n of
the
deci
sion
unde
r app
eal
lsquo112
Suc
h an
ass
essm
ent m
akes
it p
ossib
le to
dea
l with
the
appl
icat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n ex
haus
tivel
y w
ithou
t the
re b
eing
any
nee
d to
refe
r the
cas
e ba
ck to
the
dete
rmin
ing
auth
ority
Thu
s th
e co
urtrsquos
pow
er to
take
into
con
sider
atio
n ne
w e
vide
nce
on w
hich
that
aut
horit
y ha
s not
take
n a
deci
sion
is co
nsist
ent w
ith th
e pu
rpos
e of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
2 a
s ref
erre
d to
in p
arag
raph
109
of t
his j
udgm
ent
lsquo113
For
its p
art
the
adje
ctiv
e lsquofu
llrsquo u
sed
in A
rtic
le 4
6(3)
of D
irect
ive
2013
32
conf
irms t
hat t
he c
ourt
or
trib
unal
is re
quire
d to
exa
min
e bo
th th
e ev
iden
ce w
hich
the
dete
rmin
ing
auth
ority
took
into
acc
ount
or
coul
d ha
ve ta
ken
into
acc
ount
and
that
whi
ch h
as a
risen
follo
win
g th
e ad
optio
n of
the
deci
sion
by th
at
auth
ority
42 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo114
Fu
rthe
rmor
e si
nce
that
pro
visio
n m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
d in
a m
anne
r con
siste
nt w
ith A
rticl
e 47
of t
he
Char
ter
the
requ
irem
ent f
or a
full
and
ex n
unc e
xam
inat
ion
impl
ies t
hat t
he co
urt o
r trib
unal
seise
d of
the
appe
al m
ust i
nter
view
the
appl
icant
unl
ess i
t con
sider
s tha
t it i
s in
a po
sitio
n to
carr
y ou
t the
exa
min
atio
n so
lely
on
the
basis
of t
he in
form
atio
n in
the
case
file
inc
ludi
ng w
here
app
licab
le t
he re
port
or t
rans
crip
t of
thepe
rson
alinterviewbeforethatautho
rity(seetothateffe
ctjud
gmen
tof2
6 July201
7S
acko
C-3
481
6
EUC
201
759
1 p
arag
raph
s 31
and
44)
In th
e ev
ent t
hat n
ew e
vide
nce
com
es to
ligh
t afte
r the
ado
ptio
n of
th
e de
cisio
n un
der a
ppea
l th
e co
urt o
r trib
unal
is re
quire
d a
s fol
low
s fro
m A
rticl
e 47
of t
he C
hart
er t
o of
fer
the
appl
icant
the
oppo
rtun
ity to
exp
ress
his
view
s whe
n th
at e
vide
nce
coul
d af
fect
him
neg
ativ
elyrsquo
Para
116
lsquo116
Fin
ally
it m
ust b
e st
ress
ed th
at it
follo
ws f
rom
reci
tals
16 a
nd 2
2 of
Art
icle
4 a
nd fr
om th
e ge
nera
l sc
hem
e of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
2 th
at th
e ex
amin
atio
n of
the
appl
icat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n by
an
adm
inist
rativ
e or
qua
si-ju
dici
al b
ody
with
spec
ific
reso
urce
s and
spec
ialis
ed st
aff i
n th
is ar
ea is
a v
ital s
tage
of
the
com
mon
pro
cedu
res e
stab
lishe
d by
that
dire
ctiv
e A
ccor
ding
ly th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
righ
t rec
ogni
sed
by
Artic
le 4
6(3)
of t
hat d
irect
ive
to o
btai
n a
full
and
ex n
unc
exam
inat
ion
befo
re a
cou
rt o
r trib
unal
can
not
dim
inish
the
oblig
atio
n on
the
part
of t
hat a
pplic
ant
whi
ch is
gov
erne
d by
Art
icle
s 12
and
13 o
f tha
t di
rect
ive
to c
oope
rate
with
that
bod
yrsquo
Para
125
lsquo125
Whi
le a
n ap
plic
antrsquos
righ
t to
be h
eard
with
rega
rd to
the
adm
issib
ility
of h
is or
her
app
licat
ion
befo
re
any
deci
sion
on th
e m
atte
r is t
aken
is e
nsur
ed i
n th
e co
ntex
t of t
he p
roce
dure
bef
ore
the
dete
rmin
ing
auth
ority
by
the
pers
onal
inte
rvie
w p
rovi
ded
for i
n Ar
ticle
34
of D
irect
ive
2013
32
that
righ
t der
ives
du
ring
the
appe
al p
roce
dure
refe
rred
to in
Art
icle
46
of th
at d
irect
ive
from
Art
icle
47
of th
e Ch
arte
r and
isexercisedifnecessaryb
ymea
nsofa
hea
ringofth
eap
plican
t(seeto
thateffe
ctjud
gmen
tof2
6 July
2017
Sac
ko C
-348
16
EU
C2
017
591
par
agra
phs 3
7 to
44)
rsquo
Para
130
lsquo130
In
the
light
of t
he fo
rego
ing
the
answ
er to
the
four
th q
uest
ion
is th
at A
rtic
le 4
6(3)
of D
irect
ive
2013
32
read
in c
onju
nctio
n w
ith A
rtic
le 4
7 of
the
Char
ter
mus
t be
inte
rpre
ted
as m
eani
ng th
at th
e re
quire
men
t for
a fu
ll an
d ex
nun
c ex
amin
atio
n of
the
fact
s and
poi
nts o
f law
may
also
con
cern
the
grou
nds o
f ina
dmiss
ibili
ty o
f the
app
licat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n re
ferr
ed to
in A
rtic
le 3
3(2)
of t
hat
dire
ctiv
e w
here
per
mitt
ed u
nder
nat
iona
l law
and
that
in
the
even
t tha
t the
cou
rt o
r trib
unal
hea
ring
the
appe
al p
lans
to e
xam
ine
a gr
ound
of i
nadm
issib
ility
whi
ch h
as n
ot b
een
exam
ined
by
the
dete
rmin
ing
auth
ority
it m
ust c
ondu
ct a
hea
ring
of th
e ap
plic
ant i
n or
der t
o al
low
that
indi
vidu
al to
exp
ress
his
or h
er
poin
t of v
iew
in p
erso
n co
ncer
ning
the
appl
icab
ility
of t
hat g
roun
d to
his
or h
er p
artic
ular
circ
umst
ance
srsquo
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 43
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
147
lsquo147
How
ever
Art
icle
46(
3) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
2 w
ould
be
depr
ived
of a
ny p
ract
ical
effe
ct if
it w
ere
acce
pted
that
afte
r del
iver
y of
a ju
dgm
ent b
y w
hich
the
cour
t or t
ribun
al o
f firs
t ins
tanc
e co
nduc
ted
in
acc
orda
nce
with
that
pro
visio
n a
full
and
ex n
unca
sses
smen
t of t
he in
tern
atio
nal p
rote
ctio
n ne
eds
of th
e ap
plic
ant b
y vi
rtue
of D
irect
ive
2011
95
that
bod
y co
uld
take
a d
ecisi
on th
at ra
n co
unte
r to
that
as
sess
men
t or c
ould
allo
w a
con
sider
able
per
iod
of ti
me
to e
laps
e w
hich
cou
ld in
crea
se th
e ris
k th
at
evid
ence
requ
iring
a n
ew u
p-to
-dat
e as
sess
men
t mig
ht a
rise
rsquo
CJEU
Ahm
edbe
kova
C-65
216
EUC
201
880
1
041
020
18
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ns th
e in
terp
reta
tion
of D
irect
ive
2011
95
EU o
f theEu
rope
anParliamen
tand
ofthe
Cou
ncilof13 De
cembe
r201
1on
stan
dardsforth
equ
alificatio
nofth
ird-
coun
try
natio
nals
or st
atel
ess p
erso
ns a
s ben
efici
arie
s of i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n fo
r a u
nifo
rm st
atus
for
refu
gees
or f
or p
erso
ns e
ligib
le fo
r sub
sidia
ry p
rote
ctio
n a
nd fo
r the
cont
ent o
f the
pro
tect
ion
gran
ted
Stan
dard
s for
the
qual
ifica
tion
of th
ird-c
ount
ry n
atio
nals
or st
atel
ess p
erso
ns a
s ben
efic
iarie
s of
inte
rnat
iona
l pro
tect
ion
mdash D
irect
ive
2011
95
EU mdash
Art
icle
s 3 4
10
and
23 mdash
App
licat
ions
for
inte
rnat
iona
l pro
tect
ion
lodg
ed se
para
tely
by
fam
ily m
embe
rs mdash
Indi
vidu
al a
sses
smen
t mdash T
akin
g in
to
acco
unt t
hrea
ts in
resp
ect o
f a fa
mily
mem
ber i
n ca
rryi
ng o
ut th
e in
divi
dual
ass
essm
ent o
f the
app
licat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n of
ano
ther
fam
ily m
embe
r mdash M
ore
favo
urab
le st
anda
rds c
apab
le o
f bei
ng
reta
ined
or i
ntro
duce
d by
the
Mem
ber S
tate
s for
the
purp
ose
of e
xten
ding
the
refu
gee
or su
bsid
iary
pr
otec
tion
stat
us o
f a b
enef
icia
ry o
f int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
to fa
mily
mem
bers
mdash A
sses
smen
t of t
he
reas
ons f
or p
erse
cutio
n mdash
Invo
lvem
ent o
f an
Azer
baija
ni n
atio
nal i
n br
ingi
ng a
com
plai
nt a
gain
st h
er
coun
try
befo
re th
e Eu
rope
an C
ourt
of H
uman
Rig
hts mdash
Com
mon
pro
cedu
ral s
tand
ards
Para
94
lsquo94
Alth
ough
it th
us fo
llow
s fro
m A
rticl
e 46
(3) o
f Dire
ctive
201
332
that
the
Mem
ber S
tate
s are
requ
ired
to
amen
d th
eir n
atio
nal la
w in
such
a w
ay th
at th
e pr
oces
sing
of th
e ap
peal
s ref
erre
d to
inclu
des a
n ex
amin
atio
n
by th
e co
urt o
r trib
unal
of a
ll the
fact
s and
poi
nts o
f law
nec
essa
ry in
ord
er to
mak
e an
up-
to-d
ate
asse
ssm
ent
ofth
ecaseath
and(ju
dgmento
f25 July2018A
lhet
o C
-585
16
EU
C20
185
84 p
arag
raph
110
) it
does
not
fo
llow
by
cont
rast
tha
t an
appl
icant
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n m
ay w
ithou
t it b
eing
subj
ect t
o a
furt
her
asse
ssm
ent b
y th
e de
term
inin
g au
thor
ity m
odify
the
grou
nd fo
r his
appl
icatio
n an
d th
ereb
y th
e co
nfig
urat
ion
of th
e fa
cts o
f the
case
by
rely
ing
in a
n ap
peal
pro
cedu
re o
n a
grou
nd fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
whi
ch
whi
lst re
latin
g to
eve
nts o
r thr
eats
whi
ch a
llege
dly
took
pla
ce b
efor
e th
e ad
optio
n of
that
aut
horit
yrsquos d
ecisi
on
or e
ven
befo
re th
e ap
plica
tion
was
lodg
ed w
ere
not m
entio
ned
befo
re th
at a
utho
rityrsquo
FC-4731625 Janu
ary
2018
Y an
d Z
[201
2]
C-71
11
and
C-99
11
5 Septem
ber2
012
Alhe
toC-5851625 July
2018
Moh
amed
MrsquoB
odj
v Eacutet
at b
elge
C-5
421
3
18 Decem
ber2
018
B an
d D
C-5
709
and
C-101099 Novem
ber
2010
X an
d O
ther
s C-
199
12 to
C-2
011
2
7 No
vembe
r2013
44 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
s 9
7-99
lsquo97
Tha
t vita
l sta
ge b
efor
e th
e de
term
inin
g au
thor
ity w
ould
be
circ
umve
nted
if th
e ap
plic
ant w
ere
w
ithou
t any
pro
cedu
ral c
onse
quen
ces
allo
wed
to re
ly fo
r the
pur
pose
s of h
avin
g a
cour
t ann
ul o
r rep
lace
th
e de
cisio
n of
refu
sal a
dopt
ed b
y th
at a
utho
rity
on
a gr
ound
of i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n w
hich
whi
lst
rela
ting
to a
llege
dly
ante
date
d ev
ents
or t
hrea
ts w
as n
ot ra
ised
befo
re th
at a
utho
rity
and
coul
d no
t th
eref
ore
be e
xam
ined
by
it
98 A
ccor
ding
ly w
here
one
of t
he g
roun
ds fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
refe
rred
to in
par
agra
ph 9
5 ab
ove
is in
voke
d fo
r the
firs
t tim
e in
an
appe
al p
roce
dure
and
rela
tes t
o al
lege
d ev
ents
or t
hrea
ts a
nted
atin
g th
e ad
optio
n of
that
dec
ision
or e
ven
the
lodg
ing
of th
e ap
plic
atio
n fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
that
gro
und
mus
t be
rega
rded
as a
lsquofur
ther
repr
esen
tatio
nrsquo w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 4
0(1)
of D
irect
ive
2013
32
As
follo
ws f
rom
that
pro
visio
n su
ch a
cha
ract
erisa
tion
mea
ns th
at th
e co
urt b
efor
e w
hich
the
appe
al h
as
been
bro
ught
is re
quire
d to
con
sider
that
gro
und
in th
e co
urse
of i
ts e
xam
inat
ion
of th
e de
cisio
n ag
ains
t w
hich
the
appe
al h
as b
een
brou
ght
prov
ided
non
ethe
less
that
eac
h of
the
lsquocom
pete
nt a
utho
ritie
srsquo w
hich
in
clud
es n
ot o
nly
that
cou
rt b
ut a
lso th
e de
term
inin
g au
thor
ity h
as th
e op
port
unity
to a
sses
s in
that
fr
amew
ork
that
furt
her r
epre
sent
atio
n
99 I
n or
der t
o de
term
ine
whe
ther
that
cou
rt it
self
is ab
le to
ass
ess t
hat f
urth
er re
pres
enta
tion
in th
e co
urse
of t
he a
ctio
n it
is fo
r the
cou
rt to
asc
erta
in i
n ac
cord
ance
with
the
rule
s of p
roce
dure
laid
dow
n by
na
tiona
l law
whe
ther
the
grou
nd fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
relie
d on
for t
he fi
rst t
ime
befo
re it
has
not
be
en in
clud
ed in
a la
ter p
hase
of t
he a
ppea
l pro
cedu
re a
nd h
as b
een
pres
ente
d in
a su
ffici
ently
spec
ific
man
ner f
or it
to b
e du
ly c
onsid
ered
rsquo
Para
s 1
02-1
03
lsquo102
If
whi
ch it
is fo
r the
refe
rrin
g co
urt a
lone
to a
scer
tain
Mrs
Ahm
edbe
kova
add
ed d
urin
g th
e ap
peal
pr
oced
ure
not a
gro
und
of in
tern
atio
nal p
rote
ctio
n bu
t fur
ther
evi
denc
e in
supp
ort o
f a re
ason
whi
ch w
as
relie
d on
bef
ore
and
reje
cted
by
the
dete
rmin
ing
auth
ority
in
such
a c
ase
it is
for t
he c
ourt
bef
ore
whi
ch
the
actio
n ha
s bee
n br
ough
t to
asce
rtai
n w
heth
er th
e ev
iden
ce re
lied
on fo
r the
firs
t tim
e be
fore
it is
sig
nific
ant a
nd d
oes n
ot o
verla
p w
ith th
e ev
iden
ce w
hich
the
dete
rmin
ing
auth
ority
was
abl
e to
take
into
ac
coun
t If
so t
he c
onsid
erat
ions
set o
ut in
par
agra
phs 9
7 to
100
abo
ve a
pply
-mut
atis
mut
andi
s
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 45
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo103
In
the
light
of t
he fo
rego
ing
the
answ
er to
the
eigh
th q
uest
ion
is th
at A
rtic
le 4
6(3)
of D
irect
ive
2013
32
read
in c
onju
nctio
n w
ith th
e re
fere
nce
to th
e ap
peal
pro
cedu
re c
onta
ined
in A
rtic
le 4
0(1)
of
that
dire
ctiv
e m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
d as
mea
ning
that
a c
ourt
bef
ore
whi
ch a
n ac
tion
has b
een
brou
ght
agai
nst a
dec
ision
refu
sing
inte
rnat
iona
l pro
tect
ion
is in
prin
cipl
e re
quire
d to
exa
min
e a
s lsquofu
rthe
r re
pres
enta
tions
rsquo and
hav
ing
aske
d th
e de
term
inin
g au
thor
ity fo
r an
asse
ssm
ent o
f tho
se re
pres
enta
tions
gr
ound
s for
gra
ntin
g in
tern
atio
nal p
rote
ctio
n or
evi
denc
e w
hich
whi
lst re
latin
g to
eve
nts o
r thr
eats
w
hich
alle
gedl
y to
ok p
lace
bef
ore
the
adop
tion
of th
e de
cisio
n of
refu
sal
or e
ven
befo
re th
e ap
plic
atio
n fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
was
lodg
ed h
ave
been
relie
d on
for t
he fi
rst t
ime
durin
g th
ose
proc
eedi
ngs
Th
at c
ourt
is n
ot h
owev
er r
equi
red
to d
o so
if it
find
s tha
t tho
se g
roun
ds o
r evi
denc
e w
ere
relie
d on
in
a la
te st
age
of th
e ap
peal
pro
ceed
ings
or a
re n
ot p
rese
nted
in a
suffi
cien
tly sp
ecifi
c m
anne
r to
be d
uly
cons
ider
ed o
r in
resp
ect o
f evi
denc
e it
find
s tha
t tha
t evi
denc
e is
not s
igni
fican
t or i
nsuf
ficie
ntly
dist
inct
fr
om e
vide
nce
whi
ch th
e de
term
inin
g au
thor
ity w
as a
lread
y ab
le to
take
into
acc
ount
rsquo
CJEU
Ayub
i v
Bezir
ksha
uptm
anns
chaf
t Lin
z-La
nd
C-71
317
EUC
201
892
9
211
120
18
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ns th
e in
terp
reta
tion
of A
rtic
le 2
9 of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
1195EU
ofthe
Europ
eanParliam
enta
ndofthe
Cou
ncilof13 De
cembe
r201
1on
stan
dardsforth
equ
alifi
catio
n of
third
-cou
ntry
nat
iona
ls or
stat
eles
s per
sons
as b
enef
icia
ries o
f int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
for
a un
iform
stat
us fo
r ref
ugee
s or f
or p
erso
ns e
ligib
le fo
r sub
sidia
ry p
rote
ctio
n a
nd fo
r the
con
tent
of t
he
prot
ectio
n gr
ante
d
Dire
ctiv
e 20
119
5EU
mdash R
ules
rela
ting
to th
e co
nten
t of i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n mdash
Ref
ugee
stat
us mdash
So
cial
pro
tect
ion
mdash D
iffer
ent t
reat
men
t mdash R
efug
es w
ith te
mpo
rary
righ
t of r
esid
ence
Para
24
lsquo24
Sec
ond
con
ferr
ing
such
an
optio
n on
the
Mem
ber S
tate
s with
rega
rd to
the
bene
fits g
rant
ed to
re
fuge
es w
ould
be
inco
mpa
tible
with
the
prin
cipl
e th
at p
erso
ns e
ntitl
ed to
subs
idia
ry p
rote
ctio
n sh
ould
be
acc
orde
d th
e sa
me
trea
tmen
t with
resp
ect t
o pu
blic
relie
f and
ass
istan
ce a
s pro
vide
d to
nat
iona
ls of
th
at M
embe
r Sta
te la
id d
own
in A
rtic
le 2
3 of
the
Gene
va C
onve
ntio
n in
the
light
of w
hich
Art
icle
29
of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
119
5 m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
drsquo
Alo
and
Oss
o C
-443
14
andC-444141 M
arch
2016
HTC-3731324 June
20
15
Dom
ingu
ez C
-282
10
24 Janu
ary2012
Suumlruuml
lC-262964 M
ay
1999
Gavi
eiro
Gav
ieiro
an
d Ig
liesia
s Tor
res
C-44
409
and
C-4
560
9
22 Decem
ber2
010
Napo
li C
-595
12
6 March2014
H C
-174
16
7 Septem
ber2
017
46 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
25
lsquo25
It f
ollo
ws t
hat t
he le
vel o
f soc
ial s
ecur
ity b
enef
its p
aid
to re
fuge
es b
y th
e M
embe
r Sta
te w
hich
gr
ante
d th
at st
atus
whe
ther
tem
pora
ry o
r per
man
ent
mus
t be
the
sam
e as
that
offe
red
to n
atio
nals
of
that
Mem
ber S
tate
rsquo
Para
29
lsquo29
It f
ollo
ws f
rom
the
fore
goin
g th
at re
fuge
es w
ho h
ave
a re
siden
ce p
erm
it lim
ited
to th
ree
year
s mus
t be
ent
itled
to th
e sa
me
leve
l of s
ocia
l ass
istan
ce a
s tha
t pro
vide
d to
nat
iona
ls of
the
Mem
ber S
tate
whi
ch
gran
ted
them
refu
gee
stat
usrsquo
CJEU
MA
and
Oth
ers
v In
tern
atio
nal
Prot
ectio
n Ap
peal
Tr
ibun
al a
nd O
ther
s
C-66
117
EUC
201
953
230
120
19
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
s 6 a
nd 1
7
Artic
le 2
0(3)
and
Art
icle
27(
1) o
f Reg
ulat
ion
(EU
) No
604
2013
of t
he E
urop
ean
Parli
amen
t and
of t
he
Coun
cilo
f26 June
201
3establish
ingthecrite
riaand
mecha
nism
sfordeterminingtheMem
berS
tate
resp
onsib
le fo
r exa
min
ing
an a
pplic
atio
n fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
lodg
ed in
one
of t
he M
embe
r Sta
tes
by a
third
-cou
ntry
nat
iona
l or a
stat
eles
s per
son
Asyl
um p
olic
y mdash
Crit
eria
and
mec
hani
sms f
or d
eter
min
ing
the
Mem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
le fo
r exa
min
ing
an a
pplic
atio
n fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
mdash R
egul
atio
n (E
U) N
o 60
420
13 mdash
Disc
retio
nary
cla
uses
mdash
Asse
ssm
ent c
riter
ia
Para
59
lsquo59
In th
e lig
ht o
f the
ext
ent o
f the
disc
retio
n th
us c
onfe
rred
on
the
Mem
ber S
tate
s it
is fo
r the
Mem
ber
Stat
e co
ncer
ned
to d
eter
min
e th
e ci
rcum
stan
ces i
n w
hich
it w
ishes
to u
se th
e op
tion
conf
erre
d by
the
disc
retio
nary
cla
use
set o
ut in
Art
icle
17(
1) o
f the
Dub
lin II
I Reg
ulat
ion
and
to a
gree
itse
lf to
exa
min
e an
ap
plic
atio
n fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
for w
hich
it is
not
resp
onsib
le u
nder
the
crite
ria d
efin
ed b
y th
at
regu
latio
nrsquo
Para
s 7
0-72
lsquo70
By
its th
ird q
uest
ion
the
refe
rrin
g co
urt a
sks
in e
ssen
ce w
heth
er A
rtic
le 6
(1) o
f the
Dub
lin II
I Re
gula
tion
mus
t be
inte
rpre
ted
as m
eani
ng th
at it
requ
ires a
Mem
ber S
tate
whi
ch is
not
resp
onsib
le
unde
r the
crit
eria
set o
ut b
y th
at re
gula
tion
for e
xam
inin
g an
app
licat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n to
ta
ke in
to a
ccou
nt th
e be
st in
tere
sts o
f the
chi
ld a
nd to
itse
lf ex
amin
e th
at a
pplic
atio
n u
nder
Art
icle
17(
1)
of th
at re
gula
tion
Poho
tovosť C
-470
12
27 Fe
bruary2014
Euro
sane
amie
ntos
and
O
ther
s C-
532
15 a
nd
C-538158 Decem
ber
2016
RO C
-327
18
PPU
19 Sep
tembe
r2018
CK a
nd O
ther
s v
Repu
blika
Slo
veni
ja
C-57
816
PPU
16 Fe
bruary2017
Hala
fC-5281130 May
2013
Fath
i C-
561
7
4 Octob
er2018
Abdu
llahi
C-3
941
2
10 Decem
ber2
013
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 47
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo71
Giv
en th
at it
is a
lread
y ap
pare
nt fr
om p
arag
raph
s 58
and
59 o
f the
pre
sent
judg
men
t tha
t the
exe
rcise
of
the
optio
n af
ford
ed to
Mem
ber S
tate
s by
the
disc
retio
nary
cla
use
set o
ut in
Art
icle
17(
1) o
f the
Dub
lin
III R
egul
atio
n is
not s
ubje
ct to
any
par
ticul
ar c
ondi
tion
and
that
in
prin
cipl
e it
is fo
r eac
h M
embe
r Sta
te to
de
term
ine
the
circ
umst
ance
s in
whi
ch it
wish
es to
use
that
opt
ion
and
to a
gree
that
it w
ill it
self
exam
ine
an a
pplic
atio
n fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
for w
hich
it is
not
resp
onsib
le u
nder
the
crite
ria d
efin
ed b
y th
at
regu
latio
n it
mus
t be
held
that
con
sider
atio
ns re
latin
g to
the
best
inte
rest
s of t
he c
hild
can
also
not
obl
ige
a M
embe
r Sta
te to
use
that
opt
ion
and
itsel
f exa
min
e an
app
licat
ion
for w
hich
it is
not
resp
onsib
le
lsquo72
It fo
llow
s tha
t Art
icle
6(1
) of t
he D
ublin
III R
egul
atio
n m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
d as
mea
ning
that
it d
oes
not r
equi
re a
Mem
ber S
tate
whi
ch is
not
resp
onsib
le u
nder
the
crite
ria se
t out
by
that
regu
latio
n fo
r ex
amin
ing
an a
pplic
atio
n fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
to ta
ke in
to a
ccou
nt th
e be
st in
tere
sts o
f the
chi
ld
and
to it
self
exam
ine
that
app
licat
ion
und
er A
rtic
le 1
7(1)
of t
hat r
egul
atio
nrsquo
Para
76
lsquo76
Fur
ther
mor
e th
e ob
ject
ive
of th
e ra
pid
proc
essin
g of
app
licat
ions
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n an
d in
pa
rtic
ular
the
det
erm
inat
ion
of th
e M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
und
erly
ing
the
proc
edur
e es
tabl
ished
by
the
Dubl
in II
I Reg
ulat
ion
and
refe
rred
to in
reci
tal 5
of t
hat r
egul
atio
n d
iscou
rage
s mul
tiple
rem
edie
srsquo
Para
79
lsquo79
Con
sequ
ently
Art
icle
27(
1) o
f the
Dub
lin II
I Reg
ulat
ion
mus
t be
inte
rpre
ted
as m
eani
ng th
at it
do
es n
ot re
quire
a re
med
y to
be
mad
e av
aila
ble
agai
nst t
he d
ecisi
on n
ot to
use
the
optio
n se
t out
in
Artic
le 1
7(1)
of t
hat r
egul
atio
n w
ithou
t pre
judi
ce to
the
fact
that
that
dec
ision
may
be
chal
leng
ed a
t the
tim
e of
an
appe
al a
gain
st a
tran
sfer
dec
ision
rsquo
Para
s 8
8-90
lsquo88
It m
ust b
e no
ted
that
it is
cle
ar fr
om th
e w
ordi
ng o
f Art
icle
20(
3) o
f the
Dub
lin II
I Reg
ulat
ion
that
th
at is
the
case
Con
sequ
ently
it i
s onl
y w
here
it is
est
ablis
hed
that
such
an
exam
inat
ion
carr
ied
out i
n co
njun
ctio
n w
ith th
at o
f the
chi
ldrsquos
pare
nts i
s not
in th
e be
st in
tere
sts o
f tha
t chi
ld th
at it
will
be
nece
ssar
y to
trea
t the
chi
ldrsquos
situa
tion
sepa
rate
ly fr
om th
at o
f its
par
ents
lsquo89
Tha
t fin
ding
is c
onsis
tent
with
reci
tals
14 to
16
and
int
er a
lia A
rtic
le 6
(3)(a
) and
(4)
Artic
le 8
(1)
and
Artic
le 1
1 of
the
Dubl
in II
I Reg
ulat
ion
It fo
llow
s fro
m th
ose
prov
ision
s tha
t res
pect
for f
amily
life
and
m
ore
spec
ifica
lly p
rese
rvin
g th
e un
ity o
f the
fam
ily g
roup
is a
s a g
ener
al ru
le i
n th
e be
st in
tere
sts o
f the
ch
ild
XC-213175 Ju
ly2018
Tele
foacuteni
ca a
nd
Tele
foacuteni
ca d
e Es
pantildea
v
Com
miss
ion
C-29512P10 July2014
NS v
Sec
reta
ry o
f St
ate
for t
he H
ome
Depa
rtm
ent a
nd
ME
and
Oth
ers
v Re
fuge
e Ap
plica
tions
Co
mm
issio
ner a
nd
Min
ister
for J
ustic
e
Equa
lity
and
Law
Re
form
C-4
111
0 an
d C-4931021 De
cembe
r20
11
48 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo90
In th
e lig
ht o
f all
of th
e fo
rego
ing
cons
ider
atio
ns t
he a
nsw
er to
the
fifth
que
stio
n is
that
Art
icle
20(
3)
of th
e Du
blin
III R
egul
atio
n m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
d as
mea
ning
that
in
the
abse
nce
of e
vide
nce
to th
e co
ntra
ry t
hat p
rovi
sion
esta
blish
es a
pre
sum
ptio
n th
at it
is in
the
best
inte
rest
s of t
he c
hild
to tr
eat t
hat
child
rsquos sit
uatio
n as
indi
ssoc
iabl
e fr
om th
at o
f its
par
ents
rsquo
CJEU
E v
Staa
tsse
cret
aris
van
Ve
iligh
eid
en Ju
stiti
e
C-63
517
EUC
201
919
2
130
320
19
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
3(2
)(c) a
nd
Artic
le11(2)ofC
ouncilDirective20
0386EC
of2
2 Septem
ber2
003on
therig
htto
familyre
unificatio
n
Dire
ctiv
e 20
038
6EC
mdash E
xclu
sions
from
the
scop
e of
the
dire
ctiv
e mdash
Art
icle
3(2
)(c) mdash
Exc
lusio
n of
pe
rson
s ben
efiti
ng fr
om su
bsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
mdash E
xten
sion
of th
e rig
ht to
fam
ily re
unifi
catio
n to
thos
e pe
rson
s und
er n
atio
nal l
aw mdash
Juris
dict
ion
of th
e Co
urt mdash
Art
icle
11(
2) mdash
Lac
k of
offi
cial
doc
umen
tary
ev
iden
ce o
f the
fam
ily re
latio
nshi
p mdash
Exp
lana
tions
rega
rded
as i
nsuf
ficie
ntly
pla
usib
le mdash
Obl
igat
ions
on
the
auth
oriti
es o
f the
Mem
ber S
tate
s to
take
add
ition
al st
eps mdash
Lim
its
Para
s 5
7-59
lsquo57
In th
at re
gard
it i
s for
the
com
pete
nt n
atio
nal a
utho
ritie
s to
mak
e a
bala
nced
and
reas
onab
le
asse
ssm
ent o
f all
the
inte
rest
s in
play
tak
ing
part
icul
ar a
ccou
nt o
f the
inte
rest
s of t
he c
hild
ren
conc
erne
d (ju
dgmen
tof6
Decem
ber2
012O
and
Oth
ers
C-3
561
1 an
d C-
357
11 E
UC
201
277
6 p
arag
raph
81)
lsquo58
Reg
ard
mus
t also
be
had
to A
rtic
le 1
7 of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
038
6 w
hich
requ
ires a
pplic
atio
ns fo
r fam
ily
reun
ificatio
ntobeexam
ined
onacase-by-casebasis(ju
dgmen
tsof9
July201
5K
and
A C
-153
14
EU
C201
545
3paragraph
60and
of2
1 Ap
ril201
6K
hach
ab C
-558
14
EU
C2
016
285
par
agra
ph 4
3)
whi
ch m
ust t
ake
due
acco
unt o
f the
nat
ure
and
solid
ity o
f the
per
sonrsquo
s fam
ily re
latio
nshi
ps a
nd th
e du
ratio
n of
his
resid
ence
in th
e M
embe
r Sta
te a
nd o
f the
exi
sten
ce o
f fam
ily c
ultu
ral a
nd so
cial
ties
with
hiscoun
tryoforig
in(jud
gmen
tof2
7 June
200
6P
arlia
men
t v C
ounc
il C
-540
03
EU
C2
006
429
pa
ragr
aph
64)
lsquo59
Con
sequ
ently
it i
s for
the
com
pete
nt n
atio
nal a
utho
ritie
s w
hen
impl
emen
ting
Dire
ctiv
e 20
038
6 an
d ex
amin
ing
appl
icat
ions
for f
amily
reun
ifica
tion
to m
ake
inte
r alia
a c
ase-
by-c
ase
asse
ssm
ent w
hich
ta
kes a
ccou
nt o
f all
the
rele
vant
asp
ects
of t
he p
artic
ular
cas
e an
d w
here
app
ropr
iate
pay
s par
ticul
ar
atte
ntio
n to
the
inte
rest
s of t
he c
hild
ren
conc
erne
d an
d w
ith a
vie
w to
pro
mot
ing
fam
ily li
fe I
n pa
rtic
ular
ci
rcum
stan
ces s
uch
as th
e ag
e of
the
child
ren
conc
erne
d th
eir c
ircum
stan
ces i
n th
e co
untr
y of
orig
in a
nd
the
exte
nt to
whi
ch th
ey a
re d
epen
dent
on
rela
tives
are
liab
le to
influ
ence
the
exte
nt a
nd in
tens
ity o
f theexam
inationrequ
ired(see
tothateffe
ctjud
gmen
tof2
7 June
200
6P
arlia
men
t v C
ounc
il C
-540
03
EU
C2
006
429
par
agra
ph 5
6) I
n an
y ev
ent
as st
ated
in p
arag
raph
61
of t
he G
uide
lines
no
fact
or ta
ken
sepa
rate
ly m
ay a
utom
atic
ally
lead
to a
dec
ision
rsquo
Nola
n C
-583
10
18 Octob
er2012
K an
d B
C-3
801
7
7 No
vembe
r2018
C an
d A
C-2
571
7
7 No
vembe
r2018
O a
nd O
ther
s C-
356
11
and
C-35
711
6 De
cembe
r2012
Parli
amen
t v C
ounc
il
C-5400327 June
2006
Detiček C
-403
09
PPU
23 Decem
ber2
009
K an
d AC-153149 Ju
ly
2015
Khac
hab
C-5
581
4
21 April2
016
K C
-18
16
14 Sep
tembe
r2017
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 49
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
[GC]
Abub
acar
r Jaw
o ge
gen
Bund
esre
publ
ik
Deut
schl
and
C-16
317
EUC
201
921
8
190
320
19
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ns th
e in
terp
reta
tion
of A
rtic
le 3
(2) a
nd
Artic
le 2
9(1)
and
(2) o
f Reg
ulat
ion
(EU
) No
604
2013
of t
he E
urop
ean
Parli
amen
t and
of t
he C
ounc
il of
26
June
201
3establish
ingthecrite
riaand
mecha
nism
sfordeterminingtheMem
berS
tatere
spon
sible
for e
xam
inin
g an
app
licat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n lo
dged
in o
ne o
f the
Mem
ber S
tate
s by
a th
ird-
coun
try
natio
nal o
r a st
atel
ess p
erso
n a
nd A
rtic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
er o
f Fun
dam
enta
l Rig
hts o
f the
Eur
opea
n U
nion
Area
of f
reed
om s
ecur
ity a
nd ju
stic
e mdash
Dub
lin sy
stem
mdash R
egul
atio
n (E
U) N
o 60
420
13 mdash
Tra
nsfe
r of
the
asyl
um se
eker
to th
e M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
for e
xam
inin
g th
e ap
plic
atio
n fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pr
otec
tion
mdash C
once
pt o
f lsquoab
scon
ding
rsquo mdash M
odal
ities
of e
xten
ding
the
time
limit
for t
rans
fer mdash
Art
icle
4
of th
e Ch
arte
r of F
unda
men
tal R
ight
s of t
he E
urop
ean
Uni
on mdash
Sub
stan
tial r
isk o
f inh
uman
or d
egra
ding
tr
eatm
ent o
n co
mpl
etio
n of
the
asyl
um p
roce
dure
mdash L
ivin
g co
nditi
ons o
f ben
efic
iarie
s of i
nter
natio
nal
prot
ectio
n in
that
Mem
ber S
tate
Para
78
lsquo78
Mor
eove
r it
is se
ttle
d ca
se-la
w th
at th
e pr
ovisi
ons o
f the
Dub
lin II
I Reg
ulat
ion
mus
t be
inte
rpre
ted
and
appl
ied
in a
man
ner c
onsis
tent
with
the
fund
amen
tal r
ight
s gua
rant
eed
by th
e Ch
arte
r in
ter a
lia
Artic
le 4
ther
eof
whi
ch p
rohi
bits
with
out a
ny p
ossib
ility
of d
erog
atio
n in
hum
an o
r deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent
in a
ll its
form
s and
is t
here
fore
of f
unda
men
tal i
mpo
rtan
ce a
nd is
gen
eral
and
abs
olut
e in
that
it is
cl
osel
y lin
ked
to re
spec
t for
hum
an d
igni
ty w
hich
is th
e su
bjec
t of A
rtic
le 1
of t
he C
hart
errsquo
Para
s 8
0-83
lsquo80
In
the
seco
nd p
lace
it s
houl
d be
reca
lled
that
EU
law
is b
ased
on
the
fund
amen
tal p
rem
iss th
at
each
Mem
ber S
tate
shar
es w
ith a
ll th
e ot
her M
embe
r Sta
tes
and
reco
gnise
s tha
t the
y sh
are
with
it
a se
t of c
omm
on v
alue
s on
whi
ch th
e Eu
rope
an U
nion
is fo
unde
d a
s sta
ted
in A
rtic
le 2
TEU
Tha
t pr
emiss
impl
ies a
nd ju
stifi
es th
e ex
isten
ce o
f mut
ual t
rust
bet
wee
n th
e M
embe
r Sta
tes t
hat t
hose
val
ues
will
be
reco
gnise
d a
nd th
eref
ore
that
the
EU la
w th
at im
plem
ents
them
will
be
resp
ecte
d (ju
dgm
ent
of25 July201
8M
inist
er fo
r Jus
tice
and
Equa
lity
(Def
icie
ncie
s in
the
syst
em o
f jus
tice)
C-2
161
8 PP
U
EUC
201
858
6 p
arag
raph
35
and
the
case
-law
cite
d) a
nd th
at th
eir n
atio
nal l
egal
syst
ems a
re c
apab
le
of p
rovi
ding
equ
ival
ent a
nd e
ffect
ive
prot
ectio
n of
the
fund
amen
tal r
ight
s rec
ogni
sed
by th
e Ch
arte
r pa
rtic
ular
ly A
rtic
les 1
and
4 th
ereo
f w
hich
ens
hrin
e on
e of
the
fund
amen
tal v
alue
s of t
he U
nion
and
its
Mem
ber S
tate
s
DOCE
RAM
C-3
951
6
8 March2018
Mig
ratio
nsve
rket
v
Edga
r Pet
rosia
n an
d O
ther
s C-
190
8
29 Janu
ary2009
Shiri
C-2
011
6
25 Octob
er2017
NS a
nd O
ther
s C-
411
10 a
nd C
-493
10
21 Decem
ber2
011
CK a
nd O
ther
s C-
578
16 P
PU
16 Fe
bruary2017
Aranyosi an
d Că
ldăraru
C-
404
15 a
nd
C-65915PPU
5 April
2016
Min
ister
for J
ustic
e an
d Eq
ualit
y (D
efici
encie
s in
the
syst
em o
f jus
tice)
C-21618PPU
25 July
2018
ECtH
R M
SS v
Bel
gium
an
d Gr
eece
[GC
] no
306960921 Janu
ary
2011
50 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo81
The
prin
cipl
e of
mut
ual t
rust
bet
wee
n th
e M
embe
r Sta
tes i
s in
EU
law
of f
unda
men
tal i
mpo
rtan
ce
give
n th
at it
allo
ws a
n ar
ea w
ithou
t int
erna
l bor
ders
to b
e cr
eate
d an
d m
aint
aine
d M
ore
spec
ifica
lly
the
prin
cipl
e of
mut
ual t
rust
requ
ires
par
ticul
arly
as r
egar
ds th
e ar
ea o
f fre
edom
sec
urity
and
just
ice
ea
ch o
f tho
se S
tate
s sa
ve in
exc
eptio
nal c
ircum
stan
ces
to c
onsid
er a
ll th
e ot
her M
embe
r Sta
tes t
o be
co
mpl
ying
with
EU
law
and
par
ticul
arly
with
the
fund
amen
tal r
ight
s rec
ogni
sed
by E
U la
w (s
ee t
o th
at
effectjud
gmen
tsof5
April20
16A
ranyosi and
Căldă
raru
C-4
041
5 an
d C-
659
15 P
PU E
UC
201
619
8
paragrap
h78
and
of2
5 July201
8M
inist
er fo
r Jus
tice
and
Equa
lity
lsquo82
Acc
ordi
ngly
in th
e co
ntex
t of t
he C
omm
on E
urop
ean
Asyl
um S
yste
m a
nd in
par
ticul
ar th
e Du
blin
III
Regu
latio
n w
hich
is b
ased
on
the
prin
cipl
e of
mut
ual t
rust
and
whi
ch a
ims
by
stre
amlin
ing
appl
icat
ions
fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
to a
ccel
erat
e th
eir p
roce
ssin
g in
the
inte
rest
bot
h of
app
lican
ts a
nd
part
icip
atin
g St
ates
it m
ust b
e pr
esum
ed th
at th
e tr
eatm
ent o
f app
lican
ts fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
in
all M
embe
r Sta
tes c
ompl
ies w
ith th
e re
quire
men
ts o
f the
Cha
rter
the
Con
vent
ion
rela
ting
to th
e St
atus
ofRefug
eessign
edin
Gen
evaon
28 July195
1(U
nite
d N
atio
ns T
reat
y Se
ries
Vol
189
p 1
50 N
o 25
45
(195
4))
and
the
ECHR
lsquo83
It i
s not
how
ever
inco
ncei
vabl
e th
at th
at sy
stem
may
in
prac
tice
exp
erie
nce
maj
or o
pera
tiona
l pr
oble
ms i
n a
give
n M
embe
r Sta
te m
eani
ng th
at th
ere
is a
subs
tant
ial r
isk th
at a
pplic
ants
for
inte
rnat
iona
l pro
tect
ion
may
whe
n tr
ansf
erre
d to
that
Mem
ber S
tate
be
trea
ted
in a
man
ner
inco
mpa
tible
with
thei
r fun
dam
enta
l rig
htsrsquo
Para
s 8
6 -8
8
lsquo86
The
seco
nd a
nd th
ird su
bpar
agra
phs o
f Art
icle
3(2
) of t
he D
ublin
III R
egul
atio
n w
hich
cod
ified
that
ca
se-la
w st
ate
that
in
such
a si
tuat
ion
the
dete
rmin
ing
Mem
ber S
tate
bec
omes
the
Mem
ber S
tate
re
spon
sible
for e
xam
inin
g th
e ap
plic
atio
n fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
if it
finds
fol
low
ing
exam
inat
ion
of
the
crite
ria se
t out
in C
hapt
er II
I of t
hat r
egul
atio
n th
at th
e tr
ansf
er c
anno
t be
mad
e to
any
Mem
ber S
tate
de
signa
ted
on th
e ba
sis o
f tho
se c
riter
ia o
r to
the
first
Mem
ber S
tate
in w
hich
the
appl
icat
ion
was
lodg
ed
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 51
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo87
Alth
ough
the
seco
nd su
bpar
agra
ph o
f Art
icle
3(2
) of t
he D
ublin
III R
egul
atio
n en
visa
ges o
nly
the
situa
tionun
derly
ingthejudg
men
tof2
1 De
cembe
r201
1N
S a
nd O
ther
s (C-
411
10 a
nd C
-493
10
EU
C2
011
865)
nam
ely
that
in w
hich
the
real
risk
of i
nhum
an o
r deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent
with
in th
e m
eani
ng o
f Art
icle
4 o
f the
Cha
rter
ste
ms f
rom
syst
emic
flaw
s in
the
asyl
um p
roce
dure
and
the
rece
ptio
n co
nditi
ons o
f app
lican
ts fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
in th
e M
embe
r Sta
te w
hich
pur
suan
t to
that
regu
latio
n is
des
igna
ted
as re
spon
sible
for e
xam
inin
g th
e ap
plic
atio
n it
is n
ever
thel
ess a
ppar
ent
from
par
agra
phs 8
3 an
d 84
of t
he p
rese
nt ju
dgm
ent a
nd fr
om th
e ge
nera
l and
abs
olut
e na
ture
of t
he
proh
ibiti
on la
id d
own
in A
rtic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
er th
at th
e tr
ansf
er o
f an
appl
ican
t to
that
Mem
ber S
tate
is
rule
d ou
t in
any
situa
tion
in w
hich
ther
e ar
e su
bsta
ntia
l gro
unds
for b
elie
ving
that
the
appl
ican
t run
s suc
h a
risk
durin
g hi
s tra
nsfe
r or t
here
afte
r
lsquo88
Acc
ordi
ngly
it is
imm
ater
ial
for t
he p
urpo
ses o
f app
lyin
g Ar
ticle
4 o
f the
Cha
rter
whe
ther
it is
at
the
very
mom
ent o
f the
tran
sfer
dur
ing
the
asyl
um p
roce
dure
or f
ollo
win
g it
that
the
pers
on c
once
rned
w
ould
be
expo
sed
bec
ause
of h
is tr
ansf
er to
the
Mem
ber S
tate
that
is re
spon
sible
with
in th
e m
eani
ng o
f th
e Du
blin
III R
egul
atio
n to
a su
bsta
ntia
l risk
of s
uffe
ring
inhu
man
or d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
trsquo
Para
s 9
0-92
lsquo90
In th
at re
gard
whe
re th
e co
urt o
r trib
unal
hea
ring
an a
ctio
n ch
alle
ngin
g a
tran
sfer
dec
ision
has
av
aila
ble
to it
evi
denc
e pr
ovid
ed b
y th
e pe
rson
con
cern
ed fo
r the
pur
pose
s of e
stab
lishi
ng th
e ex
isten
ce
of su
ch a
risk
tha
t cou
rt o
r trib
unal
is o
blig
ed to
ass
ess
on
the
basis
of i
nfor
mat
ion
that
is o
bjec
tive
re
liabl
e sp
ecifi
c an
d pr
oper
ly u
pdat
ed a
nd h
avin
g re
gard
to th
e st
anda
rd o
f pro
tect
ion
of fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts g
uara
ntee
d by
EU
law
whe
ther
ther
e ar
e de
ficie
ncie
s w
hich
may
be
syst
emic
or g
ener
alise
d o
r w
hich
may
affe
ct c
erta
in g
roup
s of p
eopl
e
lsquo91
As r
egar
ds i
n th
e th
ird p
lace
the
que
stio
n of
wha
t crit
eria
shou
ld g
uide
the
com
pete
nt n
atio
nal
auth
oriti
es in
car
ryin
g ou
t tha
t ass
essm
ent
it m
ust b
e no
ted
that
in
orde
r to
fall
with
in th
e sc
ope
of
Artic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
er w
hich
cor
resp
onds
to A
rtic
le 3
ECH
R a
nd o
f whi
ch th
e m
eani
ng a
nd sc
ope
are
ther
efor
e in
acc
orda
nce
with
Art
icle
52(
3) o
f the
Cha
rter
the
sam
e as
thos
e la
id d
own
by th
e EC
HR t
he
defic
ienc
ies r
efer
red
to in
the
prec
edin
g pa
ragr
aph
of th
e pr
esen
t jud
gmen
t mus
t att
ain
a pa
rtic
ular
ly h
igh
leve
l of s
ever
ity w
hich
dep
ends
on
all t
he c
ircum
stan
ces o
f the
cas
e
lsquo92
Tha
t par
ticul
arly
hig
h le
vel o
f sev
erity
is a
ttain
ed w
here
the
indi
ffere
nce
of th
e au
thor
ities
of a
Mem
ber
Stat
e w
ould
resu
lt in
a p
erso
n w
holly
dep
ende
nt o
n St
ate
supp
ort f
indi
ng h
imse
lf ir
resp
ectiv
e of
his
wish
es
and
pers
onal
choi
ces
in a
situ
atio
n of
ext
rem
e m
ater
ial p
over
ty th
at d
oes n
ot a
llow
him
to m
eet h
is m
ost
basic
nee
ds s
uch
as i
nter
alia
foo
d p
erso
nal h
ygie
ne a
nd a
pla
ce to
live
and
that
und
erm
ines
his
phys
ical
or m
enta
l hea
lth o
r put
s him
in a
stat
e of
deg
rada
tion
inco
mpa
tible
with
hum
an d
igni
tyrsquo
52 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
95
lsquo95
Non
ethe
less
it c
anno
t be
entir
ely
rule
d ou
t tha
t an
appl
ican
t for
inte
rnat
iona
l pro
tect
ion
may
be
able
to
dem
onst
rate
the
exist
ence
of e
xcep
tiona
l circ
umst
ance
s tha
t are
uni
que
to h
im a
nd m
ean
that
in
the
even
t of t
rans
fer t
o th
e M
embe
r Sta
te n
orm
ally
resp
onsib
le fo
r pro
cess
ing
his a
pplic
atio
n fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pr
otec
tion
he
wou
ld fi
nd h
imse
lf b
ecau
se o
f his
part
icul
ar v
ulne
rabi
lity
irre
spec
tive
of h
is w
ishes
and
pe
rson
al c
hoic
es i
n a
situa
tion
of e
xtre
me
mat
eria
l pov
erty
mee
ting
the
crite
ria se
t out
in p
arag
raph
s 91
to 9
3 of
the
pres
ent j
udgm
ent a
fter h
avin
g be
en g
rant
ed in
tern
atio
nal p
rote
ctio
nrsquo
Para
98
lsquo98
In th
e lig
ht o
f all
the
fore
goin
g co
nsid
erat
ions
the
ans
wer
to th
e th
ird q
uest
ion
is as
follo
ws
ndash
E
U la
w m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
d as
mea
ning
that
the
ques
tion
whe
ther
Art
icle
4 o
f the
Cha
rter
pre
clud
es
the
tran
sfer
pur
suan
t to
Artic
le 2
9 of
the
Dubl
in II
I Reg
ulat
ion
of a
n ap
plic
ant f
or in
tern
atio
nal p
rote
ctio
n to
the
Mem
ber S
tate
whi
ch i
n ac
cord
ance
with
that
regu
latio
n is
nor
mal
ly re
spon
sible
for e
xam
inin
g hi
s app
licat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n w
here
in
the
even
t of s
uch
prot
ectio
n be
ing
gran
ted
in th
at
Mem
ber S
tate
the
app
lican
t wou
ld b
e ex
pose
d to
a su
bsta
ntia
l risk
of s
uffe
ring
inhu
man
or d
egra
ding
tr
eatm
ent w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
er o
n ac
coun
t of t
he li
ving
con
ditio
ns th
at h
e co
uld
be e
xpec
ted
to e
ncou
nter
as a
ben
efic
iary
of i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n in
that
Mem
ber S
tate
fal
ls w
ithin
its
scop
e
ndash
A
rtic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
er m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
d as
not
pre
clud
ing
such
a tr
ansf
er o
f an
appl
ican
t for
in
tern
atio
nal p
rote
ctio
n u
nles
s the
cou
rt h
earin
g an
act
ion
chal
leng
ing
the
tran
sfer
dec
ision
find
s o
n th
e ba
sis o
f inf
orm
atio
n th
at is
obj
ectiv
e re
liabl
e sp
ecifi
c an
d pr
oper
ly u
pdat
ed a
nd h
avin
g re
gard
to th
e st
anda
rd o
f pro
tect
ion
of fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts g
uara
ntee
d by
EU
law
that
that
risk
is re
al fo
r tha
t app
lican
t on
acc
ount
of t
he fa
ct th
at s
houl
d he
be
tran
sfer
red
he
wou
ld fi
nd h
imse
lf ir
resp
ectiv
e of
his
wish
es a
nd
pers
onal
cho
ices
in
a sit
uatio
n of
ext
rem
e m
ater
ial p
over
tyrsquo
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 53
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
[GC]
Bash
ar Ib
rahi
m a
nd
Oth
ers v
Bun
desr
epub
lik
Deut
schl
and
and
Bund
esre
publ
ik
Deut
schl
and
v Ta
us
Mag
amad
ov
C-29
717
C-3
181
7
C-31
917
and
C-4
381
7
EUC
201
921
9
190
320
19
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
33(
2)(a
) and
of
the
first
par
agra
ph o
f Art
icle
52
of D
irect
ive
2013
32
EU o
f the
Eur
opea
n Pa
rliam
ent a
nd o
f the
Cou
ncil
of26 June
201
3on
com
mon
procedu
resforgrantingan
dwith
draw
inginternationa
lprotectionan
dof
Artic
les 4
and
18
of th
e Ch
arte
r of F
unda
men
tal R
ight
s of t
he E
urop
ean
Uni
on
Area
of f
reed
om s
ecur
ity a
nd ju
stice
mdash C
omm
on p
roce
dure
s for
gra
ntin
g an
d w
ithdr
awin
g in
tern
atio
nal
prot
ectio
n mdash
Dire
ctive
201
332
EU
mdash A
rticl
e 33
(2)(a
) mdash R
ejec
tion
by th
e au
thor
ities
of a
Mem
ber S
tate
of a
n ap
plica
tion
for a
sylu
m a
s bei
ng in
adm
issib
le b
ecau
se o
f the
prio
r gra
ntin
g of
subs
idia
ry p
rote
ctio
n in
ano
ther
M
embe
r Sta
te mdash
Art
icle
52 mdash
Sco
pe ra
tione
tem
poris
of t
hat d
irect
ive mdash
Art
icles
4 a
nd 1
8 of
the
Char
ter o
f Fu
ndam
enta
l Rig
hts o
f the
Eur
opea
n Un
ion
mdash S
yste
mic
flaw
s in
the
asyl
um p
roce
dure
in th
at o
ther
Mem
ber
Stat
e mdash
Sys
tem
atic
reje
ctio
n of
app
licat
ions
for a
sylu
m mdash
Sub
stan
tial r
isk o
f suf
ferin
g in
hum
an o
r deg
radi
ng
treat
men
t mdash Li
ving
cond
ition
s of t
hose
gra
nted
subs
idia
ry p
rote
ctio
n in
that
oth
er S
tate
Para
s 8
8-93
lsquo88
Acc
ordi
ngly
whe
re a
cou
rt o
r trib
unal
hea
ring
an a
ctio
n br
ough
t aga
inst
a d
ecisi
on re
ject
ing
a ne
w
appl
icat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n as
bei
ng in
adm
issib
le h
as a
vaila
ble
to it
evi
denc
e pr
oduc
ed b
y th
e ap
plic
ant i
n or
der t
o es
tabl
ish th
e ex
isten
ce o
f suc
h a
risk
in th
e M
embe
r Sta
te th
at h
as p
revi
ously
gr
ante
d su
bsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
that
cou
rt o
r trib
unal
is o
blig
ed to
ass
ess
on
the
basis
of i
nfor
mat
ion
that
is o
bjec
tive
relia
ble
spec
ific
and
prop
erly
upd
ated
and
hav
ing
rega
rd to
the
stan
dard
of p
rote
ctio
n of
fund
amen
tal r
ight
s gua
rant
eed
by E
U la
w w
heth
er th
ere
are
defic
ienc
ies
whi
ch m
ay b
e sy
stem
ic o
r ge
nera
lised
or w
hich
may
affe
ct c
erta
in g
roup
s of p
eopl
e (s
ee b
y an
alog
y ju
dgm
ent o
f tod
ayrsquos
date
Ja
wo
C-1
631
7 p
arag
raph
90
and
the
case
-law
cite
d)
lsquo89
In th
at re
gard
it m
ust b
e st
ated
that
if t
he d
efic
ienc
ies m
entio
ned
in th
e pr
eced
ing
para
grap
h of
the
pres
ent j
udgm
ent a
re to
fall
with
in th
e sc
ope
of A
rtic
le 4
of t
he C
hart
er w
hich
cor
resp
onds
to A
rtic
le 3
of
the
ECHR
and
the
mea
ning
and
scop
e of
whi
ch is
ther
efor
e u
nder
Art
icle
52(
3) o
f the
Cha
rter
the
sam
e as
thos
e la
id d
own
by th
e EC
HR t
hose
def
icie
ncie
s mus
t att
ain
a pa
rtic
ular
ly h
igh
leve
l of s
ever
ity w
hich
de
pend
s on
all t
he c
ircum
stan
ces o
f the
cas
e (ju
dgm
ent o
f tod
ayrsquos
date
Jaw
o C
-163
17
par
agra
ph 9
1 an
d th
e ca
se-la
w c
ited)
lsquo90
Tha
t par
ticul
arly
hig
h le
vel o
f sev
erity
is a
ttai
ned
whe
re th
e in
diffe
renc
e of
the
auth
oriti
es o
f a
Mem
ber S
tate
wou
ld re
sult
in a
per
son
who
lly d
epen
dent
on
Stat
e su
ppor
t fin
ding
him
self
irre
spec
tive
of h
is w
ishes
and
his
pers
onal
cho
ices
in
a sit
uatio
n of
ext
rem
e m
ater
ial p
over
ty th
at d
oes n
ot a
llow
hi
m to
mee
t his
mos
t bas
ic n
eeds
suc
h as
int
er a
lia f
ood
per
sona
l hyg
iene
and
a p
lace
to li
ve a
nd th
at
unde
rmin
es h
is ph
ysic
al o
r men
tal h
ealth
or p
uts h
im in
a st
ate
of d
egra
datio
n in
com
patib
le w
ith h
uman
di
gnity
(jud
gmen
t of t
oday
rsquos da
te J
awo
C-1
631
7 p
arag
raph
92
and
the
case
-law
cite
d)
Alhe
toC-5851625 July
2018
Ahm
edC-36175 April
2017
Abub
acar
r Jaw
o v
Bund
esre
publ
ik
Deut
schl
and
[GC]
C-1631719 March
2019
54 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo91
Tha
t thr
esho
ld c
anno
t the
refo
re c
over
situ
atio
ns c
hara
cter
ised
even
by
a hi
gh d
egre
e of
inse
curit
y or
a si
gnifi
cant
deg
rada
tion
of th
e liv
ing
cond
ition
s of t
he p
erso
n co
ncer
ned
whe
re th
ey d
o no
t ent
ail
extr
eme
mat
eria
l pov
erty
pla
cing
that
per
son
in a
situ
atio
n of
such
gra
vity
that
it m
ay b
e eq
uate
d w
ith
inhu
man
or d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t (ju
dgm
ent o
f tod
ayrsquos
date
Jaw
o C
-163
17
par
agra
ph 9
3)
lsquo92
Giv
en th
e co
ncer
ns o
f the
refe
rrin
g co
urt o
n th
is po
int
it m
ust b
e m
ade
clea
r tha
t ha
ving
rega
rd to
th
e im
port
ance
of t
he p
rinci
ple
of m
utua
l tru
st fo
r the
com
mon
Eur
opea
n as
ylum
syst
em i
nfrin
gem
ents
of
the
prov
ision
s of C
hapt
er V
II of
the
Qua
lific
atio
n Di
rect
ive
whi
ch d
o no
t res
ult i
n a
brea
ch o
f Art
icle
4
of th
e Ch
arte
r do
not p
reve
nt th
e M
embe
r Sta
tes f
rom
exe
rcisi
ng th
e op
tion
gran
ted
by A
rtic
le 3
3(2)
(a) o
f th
e Pr
oced
ures
Dire
ctiv
e
lsquo93
As r
egar
ds th
e fa
ct a
lso m
entio
ned
by th
e re
ferr
ing
cour
t th
at th
ose
gran
ted
subs
idia
ry p
rote
ctio
n do
not
rece
ive
in th
e M
embe
r Sta
te w
hich
gra
nted
such
pro
tect
ion
to th
e ap
plic
ant
any
subs
isten
ce
allo
wan
ce o
r tha
t suc
h al
low
ance
as t
hey
rece
ive
is m
arke
dly
infe
rior t
o th
at in
oth
er M
embe
r Sta
tes
th
ough
they
are
not
trea
ted
diffe
rent
ly fr
om n
atio
nals
of th
at M
embe
r Sta
te t
hat c
an le
ad to
the
findi
ng
that
that
app
lican
t is e
xpos
ed in
that
Mem
ber S
tate
to a
real
risk
of s
uffe
ring
trea
tmen
t tha
t is i
n br
each
of
Art
icle
4 o
f the
Cha
rter
onl
y if
the
cons
eque
nce
is th
at th
e ap
plic
ant i
s b
ecau
se o
f his
or h
er p
artic
ular
vu
lner
abili
ty i
rres
pect
ive
of h
is or
her
wish
es a
nd p
erso
nal c
hoic
es i
n a
situa
tion
of e
xtre
me
mat
eria
l po
vert
y th
at m
eets
the
crite
ria d
escr
ibed
in p
arag
raph
s 89
to 9
1 of
the
pres
ent j
udgm
entrsquo
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 55
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
[GC]
SM v
Ent
ry C
lear
ance
O
ffic
er U
K Vi
sa S
ectio
n
C-12
918
EUC
201
924
8
260
320
19
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
2(2
)(c) a
nd
Artic
les2
7an
d35
ofD
irective20
0438EC
ofthe
Europ
eanParliam
enta
ndofthe
Cou
ncilof29 Ap
ril
2004
on
the
right
of c
itize
ns o
f the
Uni
on a
nd th
eir f
amily
mem
bers
to m
ove
and
resid
e fr
eely
with
in th
e te
rrito
ry o
f the
Mem
ber S
tate
s
Dire
ctiv
e 20
043
8EC
mdash F
amily
mem
bers
of a
citi
zen
of th
e U
nion
mdash A
rtic
le 2
(2)(c
) mdash lsquoD
irect
de
scen
dant
rsquo mdash C
hild
in p
erm
anen
t leg
al g
uard
ians
hip
unde
r the
Alg
eria
n ka
fala
(pro
visio
n of
car
e)
syst
em mdash
Art
icle
3(2
)(a) mdash
Oth
er fa
mily
mem
bers
mdash A
rtic
le 7
and
Art
icle
24(
2) o
f the
Cha
rter
of
Fund
amen
tal R
ight
s of t
he E
urop
ean
Uni
on mdash
Fam
ily li
fe mdash
Bes
t int
eres
ts o
f the
chi
ld
Para
67
lsquo67
Art
icle
7 o
f the
Cha
rter
mus
t m
oreo
ver
be re
ad in
con
junc
tion
with
the
oblig
atio
n to
take
into
co
nsid
erat
ion
the
best
inte
rest
s of t
he c
hild
whi
ch a
re re
cogn
ised
in A
rtic
le 2
4(2)
ther
eofrsquo
Ziol
kow
ski a
nd S
zeja
C-
424
10 a
nd C
-425
10
21 Decem
ber2
011
Lass
al C
-162
09
7 Octob
er2010
O a
nd B
C-4
561
2
12 M
arch2014
Com
an a
nd O
ther
s C-673165 Ju
ne2018
Reye
s C-
423
12
16 Janu
ary2014
Ogi
eria
khi
C-24
413
10 Ju
ly2014
Rahm
an a
nd O
ther
s C-83115 Sep
tembe
r20
12
Bang
erC-891712 July
2018
McB
C-
400
10 P
PU
5 Octob
er2010
ECtH
R C
hbih
i Lou
doud
i an
d O
ther
s v B
elgi
um
no 5226510
16 Decem
ber2
014
Detiček C
-403
09
PPU
23 Decem
ber2
009
56 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
[GC
Staa
tsse
cret
aris
van
Ve
iligh
eid
en Ju
stiti
e v
H an
d R
Join
ed c
ases
C-5
821
7 an
d C-
5837
17
EUC
201
928
0
020
420
19
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Reg
ulat
ion
(EU
) No
60420
13ofthe
Europ
eanParliam
enta
ndofthe
Cou
ncilof26 June
201
3establish
ingthecrite
riaand
m
echa
nism
s for
det
erm
inin
g th
e M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
for e
xam
inin
g an
app
licat
ion
for i
nter
natio
nal
prot
ectio
n lo
dged
in o
ne o
f the
Mem
ber S
tate
s by
a th
ird-c
ount
ry n
atio
nal o
r a st
atel
ess p
erso
n
Regu
latio
n (E
U) N
o 60
420
13 mdash
Art
icle
18(
1)(b
) to
(d) mdash
Art
icle
23(
1) mdash
Art
icle
24(
1) mdash
Tak
e ba
ck
proc
edur
e mdash
Crit
eria
for d
eter
min
ing
resp
onsib
ility
mdash N
ew a
pplic
atio
n lo
dged
in a
noth
er M
embe
r St
ate
mdash A
rtic
le 2
0(5)
mdash O
ngoi
ng d
eter
min
atio
n pr
oces
s mdash W
ithdr
awal
of t
he a
pplic
atio
n mdash
Art
icle
27
mdash
Rem
edie
s
Para
83
lsquo83
With
this
in m
ind
it sh
ould
be
obse
rved
that
the
crite
ria fo
r det
erm
inin
g re
spon
sibili
ty se
t out
in
Art
icle
s 8 to
10
of th
e Re
gula
tion
read
in th
e lig
ht o
f rec
itals
13 a
nd 1
4 th
ereo
f ar
e in
tend
ed to
pr
omot
e th
e be
st in
tere
sts o
f the
chi
ld a
nd th
e fa
mily
life
of t
he p
erso
ns c
once
rned
whi
ch a
re m
oreo
ver
guar
ante
ed in
Art
icle
s 7 a
nd 2
4 of
the
Char
ter o
f Fun
dam
enta
l Rig
hts
In th
ose
circ
umst
ance
s a
Mem
ber
Stat
e ca
nnot
in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith th
e pr
inci
ple
of si
ncer
e co
oper
atio
n p
rope
rly m
ake
a ta
ke b
ack
requ
est
in a
situ
atio
n co
vere
d by
Art
icle
20(
5) o
f the
regu
latio
n w
hen
the
pers
on c
once
rned
has
pro
vide
d th
e co
mpe
tent
aut
horit
y w
ith in
form
atio
n cl
early
est
ablis
hing
that
that
Mem
ber S
tate
mus
t be
rega
rded
as
the
Mem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
le fo
r exa
min
ing
the
appl
icat
ion
purs
uant
to th
ose
crite
ria fo
r det
erm
inin
g re
spon
sibili
ty I
n su
ch a
situ
atio
n it
is o
n th
e co
ntra
ry f
or th
at M
embe
r Sta
te to
acc
ept i
ts o
wn
resp
onsib
ility
rsquo
Chav
ez-V
ilche
z and
O
ther
s C-
133
15
10 M
ay2017
Rend
oacuten M
ariacuten
C-1651413 Septem
ber
2016
Ghez
elba
sh C
-63
15
7 June
2016
Karim
C-155157 Ju
ne
2016
Men
gest
eab
C-6
701
6
26 Ju
ly2017
Shiri
C-2
011
6
25 Octob
er2017
ASC-4901626 July
2017
Hasa
n C
-360
16
25 Janu
ary2018
X an
d X
C-4
717
and
C-481713 No
vembe
r20
18
Ghez
elba
sh C
-63
15
7 June
2016
Mirz
a C
-695
15
PPU
17 M
arch2016
Khir
Amay
ry C
-60
16
13 Sep
tembe
r2017
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 57
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
Moh
amm
ed B
ilali
v Bu
ndes
amt f
uumlr
Frem
denw
esen
und
Asy
l
C-72
017
EUC
201
944
8
230
520
19
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
19
of D
irect
ive
2011
95EU
ofthe
Europ
eanParliam
enta
ndofthe
Cou
ncilof13 De
cembe
r201
1on
stan
dardsforth
equ
alifi
catio
n of
third
-cou
ntry
nat
iona
ls or
stat
eles
s per
sons
as b
enef
icia
ries o
f int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
for
a un
iform
stat
us fo
r ref
ugee
s or f
or p
erso
ns e
ligib
le fo
r sub
sidia
ry p
rote
ctio
n a
nd fo
r the
con
tent
of t
he
prot
ectio
n gr
ante
d
Area
of f
reed
om s
ecur
ity a
nd ju
stic
e mdash
Asy
lum
pol
icy
mdash S
ubsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
mdash D
irect
ive
2011
95
EU mdash
Art
icle
19
mdash R
evoc
atio
n of
subs
idia
ry p
rote
ctio
n st
atus
mdash E
rror
on
the
part
of t
he a
dmin
istra
tive
auth
oriti
es w
ith re
spec
t to
the
fact
s
Para
44
lsquo44
In th
at re
gard
it s
houl
d be
not
ed f
irst
that
the
Cour
t has
alre
ady
held
that
it w
ould
be
cont
rary
to
the
gene
ral s
chem
e an
d ob
ject
ives
of D
irect
ive
2011
95
to g
rant
refu
gee
stat
us a
nd su
bsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
stat
us to
third
-cou
ntry
nat
iona
ls in
situ
atio
ns w
hich
hav
e no
con
nect
ion
with
the
ratio
nale
of i
nter
natio
nal
protectio
n(see
tothateffe
ctjud
gmen
tof1
8 De
cembe
r201
4M
rsquoBod
j C-
542
13 E
UC
201
424
52
para
grap
h 44
) Th
e sit
uatio
n of
an
indi
vidu
al w
ho h
as o
btai
ned
subs
idia
ry p
rote
ctio
n st
atus
on
the
basis
of
inco
rrec
t inf
orm
atio
n w
ithou
t eve
r hav
ing
met
the
cond
ition
s for
obt
aini
ng th
at st
atus
has
no
conn
ectio
n w
ith th
e ra
tiona
le o
f int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
rsquo
Para
51
lsquo51
Con
sequ
ently
it f
ollo
ws f
rom
a c
ombi
ned
read
ing
of A
rtic
les 1
6 an
d 19
(1) o
f Dire
ctiv
e 20
119
5 in
the
light
of t
he g
ener
al sc
hem
e an
d pu
rpos
e of
that
dire
ctiv
e th
at w
here
the
host
Mem
ber S
tate
has
new
in
form
atio
n w
hich
est
ablis
hes t
hat
cont
rary
to it
s ini
tial a
sses
smen
t of t
he si
tuat
ion
of a
third
-cou
ntry
na
tiona
l or o
f a st
atel
ess p
erso
n to
who
m it
gra
nted
subs
idia
ry p
rote
ctio
n b
ased
on
inco
rrec
t inf
orm
atio
n
that
per
son
neve
r fac
ed a
risk
of s
erio
us h
arm
with
in th
e m
eani
ng o
f Art
icle
15
of th
at d
irect
ive
that
M
embe
r Sta
te m
ust c
oncl
ude
from
this
that
the
circ
umst
ance
s und
erly
ing
the
gran
ting
of su
bsid
iary
pr
otec
tion
stat
us h
ave
chan
ged
in su
ch a
way
that
rete
ntio
n of
that
stat
us is
no
long
er ju
stifi
edrsquo
Para
58
lsquo58
Alth
ough
ther
e is
noth
ing
in th
at c
onve
ntio
n th
at e
xpre
ssly
pro
vide
s for
loss
of r
efug
ee st
atus
if
it su
bseq
uent
ly e
mer
ges t
hat t
hat s
tatu
s sho
uld
neve
r hav
e be
en c
onfe
rred
the
UN
HCR
neve
rthe
less
co
nsid
ers t
hat
in su
ch a
situ
atio
n th
e de
cisio
n gr
antin
g re
fuge
e st
atus
mus
t in
prin
cipl
e b
e an
nulle
d (H
andb
ook
on P
roce
dure
s and
Crit
eria
for D
eter
min
ing
Refu
gee
Stat
us u
nder
the
1951
Con
vent
ion
and
the
1967
Pro
toco
l rel
atin
g to
the
Stat
us o
f Ref
ugee
s 1
992
par
agra
ph 1
17)rsquo
IdiC-1011828 March
2019
Ahm
ed C
-369
17
13 Sep
tembe
r2018
M a
nd O
ther
s (R
evoc
atio
n of
refu
gee
stat
us)
C-39
116
C-
771
7 an
d C-
-81
7
14 M
ay2019
Ahm
edbe
kova
C-652164 Octob
er
2018
Moh
amed
MrsquoB
odj
v Eacutet
at b
elge
C-5
421
3
18 Decem
ber2
014
HTC-3731324 June
20
15
Sala
hadi
n Ab
dulla
and
O
ther
s jo
ined
case
s C-
175
08 C
-176
08
C-
178
08 a
nd C
-179
08
2 March2010
Alo
and
Oss
o C
-443
14
andC-444141 M
arch
2016
Hala
fC-5281130 May
2013
58 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
62
lsquo62
It sh
ould
also
be
adde
d th
at w
hen
mak
ing
the
asse
ssm
ents
whi
ch it
is fo
r the
Mem
ber S
tate
co
ncer
ned
to c
arry
out
und
er th
e pr
oced
ures
refe
rred
to in
par
agra
phs 6
0 an
d 61
of t
he p
rese
nt
judg
men
t th
at M
embe
r Sta
te is
obl
iged
to o
bser
ve i
n pa
rtic
ular
the
fund
amen
tal r
ight
of t
he p
erso
n co
ncer
ned
to re
spec
t for
priv
ate
and
fam
ily li
fe w
hich
is g
uara
ntee
d w
ithin
thei
r res
pect
ive
scop
e of
ap
plic
atio
n b
y Ar
ticle
7 o
f the
Cha
rter
of F
unda
men
tal R
ight
s of t
he E
urop
ean
Uni
on a
nd b
y Ar
ticle
8 o
f th
e EC
HRrsquo
B an
d D
C-5
709
and
C-101099 Novem
ber
2010
CJEU
[GC]
Zuba
r Haq
bin
v Fe
dera
al
Agen
tsch
ap v
oor d
e op
vang
van
asi
elzo
eker
s
C-23
318
EUC
201
995
6
121
120
19
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ning
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Art
icle
20
of D
irect
ive
2013
33EU
ofthe
Europ
eanParliam
enta
ndofthe
Cou
ncilof26 June
201
3laying
dow
nstan
dardsforth
ere
cept
ion
of a
pplic
ants
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ctio
n
Appl
ican
ts fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
mdash D
irect
ive
2013
33
EU mdash
Art
icle
20(
4) a
nd (5
) mdash S
erio
us b
reac
h of
the
rule
s of t
he a
ccom
mod
atio
n ce
ntre
s as w
ell a
s ser
ious
ly v
iole
nt b
ehav
iour
mdash S
cope
of t
he M
embe
r St
ates
rsquo rig
ht to
det
erm
ine
the
sanc
tions
app
licab
le mdash
Una
ccom
pani
ed m
inor
mdash R
educ
tion
or w
ithdr
awal
of
mat
eria
l rec
eptio
n co
nditi
ons
Para
34
lsquo34
In th
e sp
ecifi
c sit
uatio
n of
lsquovul
nera
ble
pers
onsrsquo
with
in th
e m
eani
ng o
f Art
icle
21
of th
e di
rect
ive
w
hich
incl
ude
unac
com
pani
ed m
inor
s suc
h as
Mr H
aqbi
n at
the
time
whe
n he
was
the
subj
ect o
f the
sa
nctio
n at
issu
e in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s th
e se
cond
subp
arag
raph
of A
rtic
le 1
7(2)
of t
he d
irect
ive
stat
es
that
Mem
ber S
tate
s mus
t ens
ure
that
such
a st
anda
rd o
f liv
ing
is lsquom
etrsquorsquo
Para
45
lsquo45
Firs
t th
e ho
st M
embe
r Sta
te m
ust r
espe
ct fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts
as i
s app
aren
t fro
m re
cita
l 35
of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
3 C
onse
quen
tly A
rtic
le 2
0 of
that
dire
ctiv
e m
ust b
e re
ad a
nd in
terp
rete
d in
the
light
in
part
icul
ar o
f res
pect
for h
uman
dig
nity
and
the
right
s of t
he c
hild
ens
hrin
ed r
espe
ctiv
ely
in A
rtic
les 1
an
d 24
of t
he C
hart
errsquo
CHEZ
Raz
pred
elen
ie
Bulg
aria
C-8
314
16 Ju
ly2015
Abub
acar
r Jaw
o v
Bund
esre
publ
ik
Deut
schl
and
[GC]
C-1631719 March
2019
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 59
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
46
lsquo46
With
rega
rd sp
ecifi
cally
to th
e re
quire
men
t to
ensu
re a
dig
nifie
d st
anda
rd o
f liv
ing
it is
app
aren
t fr
om re
cita
l 35
of D
irect
ive
2013
33
that
the
dire
ctiv
e se
eks t
o en
sure
full
resp
ect f
or h
uman
dig
nity
and
to
pro
mot
e th
e ap
plic
atio
n in
ter a
lia o
f Art
icle
1 o
f the
Cha
rter
of F
unda
men
tal R
ight
s and
has
to b
e im
plem
ente
d ac
cord
ingl
y In
that
rega
rd r
espe
ct fo
r hum
an d
igni
ty w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of t
hat a
rtic
le
requ
ires t
he p
erso
n co
ncer
ned
not f
indi
ng h
imse
lf or
her
self
in a
situ
atio
n of
ext
rem
e m
ater
ial p
over
ty
that
doe
s not
allo
w th
at p
erso
n to
mee
t his
or h
er m
ost b
asic
nee
ds su
ch a
s a p
lace
to li
ve f
ood
clo
thin
g an
d pe
rson
al h
ygie
ne a
nd th
at u
nder
min
es h
is or
her
phy
sical
or m
enta
l hea
lth o
r put
s tha
t per
son
in
a st
ate
of d
egra
datio
n in
com
patib
le w
ith h
uman
dig
nity
rsquo
Para
53
lsquo53
Las
tly i
t is i
mpo
rtan
t to
note
that
whe
re th
e ap
plic
ant
as in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s is
an
unac
com
pani
ed m
inor
tha
t is t
o sa
y a
lsquovul
nera
ble
pers
onrsquo w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 2
1 of
Dire
ctiv
e 20
133
3 th
e au
thor
ities
of t
he M
embe
r Sta
tes
whe
n im
posin
g sa
nctio
ns p
ursu
ant t
o Ar
ticle
20(
4) o
f the
di
rect
ive
mus
t esp
ecia
lly ta
ke in
to a
ccou
nt a
ccor
ding
to th
e se
cond
sent
ence
of A
rtic
le 2
0(5)
ther
eof
of
the
part
icul
ar si
tuat
ion
of th
e m
inor
and
of t
he p
rinci
ple
of p
ropo
rtio
nalit
yrsquo
Para
54
lsquo54
The
pro
visio
n of
such
supp
ort i
s jus
tifie
d sin
ce th
e ad
optio
n of
such
a sa
nctio
n do
es n
ot m
ean
that
th
e re
cept
ion
right
has
lega
lly c
ome
to a
n en
d F
or a
s lon
g as
the
min
or is
aut
horis
ed to
rem
ain
on th
e te
rrito
ry o
f the
hos
t Mem
ber S
tate
for t
he p
urpo
ses o
f exa
min
atio
n of
his
appl
icat
ion
(25)
and
pro
vide
d th
at h
e do
es n
ot h
ave
suffi
cien
t ow
n m
eans
to su
ppor
t his
esse
ntia
l nee
ds (
26) t
hat S
tate
mus
t ens
ure
rece
ptio
n co
nditi
ons t
hat e
nabl
e hi
m to
hav
e ac
cess
to h
ealth
car
e an
d to
live
in d
igni
ty (
27) A
lthou
gh
the
EU le
gisla
ture
doe
s not
spec
ify th
e m
easu
res w
hich
the
host
Mem
ber S
tate
is sp
ecifi
cally
requ
ired
to a
dopt
in o
rder
to e
nsur
e a
dign
ified
stan
dard
of l
ivin
g th
ose
mea
sure
s mus
t cov
er th
e m
ost e
ssen
tial
right
s at t
he ti
me
whe
n th
e ap
plic
ant i
s with
out s
ourc
es o
f inc
ome
nam
ely
the
poss
ibili
ty to
be
hous
ed
fed
and
clot
hed
rsquo
60 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
56
lsquo56
In th
e lig
ht o
f all
of th
e fo
rego
ing
the
answ
er to
the
ques
tions
refe
rred
is th
at A
rtic
le 2
0(4)
and
(5) o
f Di
rect
ive
2013
33
read
in th
e lig
ht o
f Art
icle
1 o
f the
Cha
rter
of F
unda
men
tal R
ight
s m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
d as
mea
ning
that
a M
embe
r Sta
te c
anno
t am
ong
the
sanc
tions
that
may
be
impo
sed
on a
n ap
plic
ant f
or
serio
us b
reac
hes o
f the
rule
s of t
he a
ccom
mod
atio
n ce
ntre
s as w
ell a
s ser
ious
ly v
iole
nt b
ehav
iour
pro
vide
fo
r a sa
nctio
n co
nsist
ing
in th
e w
ithdr
awal
eve
n te
mpo
rary
of m
ater
ial r
ecep
tion
cond
ition
s w
ithin
th
e m
eani
ng o
f Art
icle
2(f)
and
(g) o
f the
dire
ctiv
e re
latin
g to
hou
sing
food
or c
loth
ing
in so
far a
s it
wou
ld h
ave
the
effe
ct o
f dep
rivin
g th
e ap
plic
ant o
f the
pos
sibili
ty o
f mee
ting
his o
r her
mos
t bas
ic n
eeds
Th
e im
posit
ion
of o
ther
sanc
tions
und
er A
rtic
le 2
0(4)
of t
he d
irect
ive
mus
t un
der a
ll ci
rcum
stan
ces
co
mpl
y w
ith th
e co
nditi
ons l
aid
dow
n in
Art
icle
20(
5) th
ereo
f in
clud
ing
thos
e co
ncer
ning
the
prin
cipl
e of
pr
opor
tiona
lity
and
resp
ect f
or h
uman
dig
nity
In
the
case
of a
n un
acco
mpa
nied
min
or t
hose
sanc
tions
m
ust
in th
e lig
ht i
nter
alia
of A
rtic
le 2
4 of
the
Char
ter o
f Fun
dam
enta
l Rig
hts
be
dete
rmin
ed b
y ta
king
pa
rtic
ular
acc
ount
of t
he b
est i
nter
ests
of t
he c
hild
rsquo
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 61
Advo
cate
Gen
eral
(AG
) Opi
nion
CJEU
(Opi
nion
of
Advo
cate
Ge
nera
l Sh
arps
ton)
A B
and
C v
St
aats
secr
etar
is v
an
Veili
ghei
d en
Just
itie
C-14
813
to C
-150
13
EUC
201
421
11
170
720
14
Opi
nion
afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g co
ncer
ns a
bro
ad c
once
ptua
l que
stio
n as
to w
heth
er E
U
law
lim
its th
e ac
tions
of M
embe
r Sta
tes w
hen
asse
ssin
g re
ques
ts fo
r asy
lum
mad
e by
an
appl
ican
t who
fe
ars p
erse
cutio
n in
his
coun
try
of o
rigin
on
grou
nds o
f his
sexu
al o
rient
atio
n
Dire
ctiv
e 20
058
5EC
mdash A
sses
smen
t of a
pplic
atio
ns fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
mdash A
sses
smen
t of f
acts
an
d ci
rcum
stan
ces mdash
Cre
dibi
lity
of a
n ap
plic
antrsquos
ave
rred
sexu
al o
rient
atio
n)
Para
s 6
0 ndash
61
lsquo60
With
in th
e Eu
rope
an U
nion
hom
osex
ualit
y is
no lo
nger
con
sider
ed to
be
a m
edic
al o
r psy
chol
ogic
al
cond
ition
(65
) The
re is
no
reco
gnise
d m
edic
al e
xam
inat
ion
that
can
be
appl
ied
in o
rder
to e
stab
lish
a pe
rson
rsquos se
xual
orie
ntat
ion
As r
egar
ds th
e rig
ht to
priv
ate
life
inte
rfere
nce
with
an
indi
vidu
alrsquos
right
to
his s
exua
l orie
ntat
ion
can
only
be
mad
e w
here
int
er a
lia i
t is p
rovi
ded
for b
y la
w a
nd it
com
plie
s with
the
prin
cipl
e of
pro
port
iona
lity
lsquo61
Sin
ce h
omos
exua
lity
is no
t a m
edic
al c
ondi
tion
any
pur
port
ed m
edic
al te
st a
pplie
d to
det
erm
ine
an a
pplic
antrsquos
sexu
al o
rient
atio
n co
uld
not
in m
y vi
ew b
e co
nsid
ered
to b
e co
nsist
ent w
ith A
rtic
le 3
of
the
Char
ter
It w
ould
also
fail
the
prop
ortio
nalit
y re
quire
men
t (Ar
ticle
52(
1)) i
n re
latio
n to
a v
iola
tion
of th
e rig
ht to
priv
acy
and
fam
ily li
fe b
ecau
se b
y de
finiti
on s
uch
a te
st c
anno
t ach
ieve
the
obje
ctiv
e of
es
tabl
ishin
g an
indi
vidu
alrsquos
sexu
al o
rient
atio
n It
follo
ws t
hat m
edic
al te
sts c
anno
t be
used
for t
he p
urpo
se
of e
stab
lishi
ng a
n ap
plic
antrsquos
cre
dibi
lity
as t
hey
infr
inge
Art
icle
s 3 a
nd 7
of t
he C
hart
errsquo
Min
ister
voo
r Im
mig
ratie
en
Asie
l v
X Y
and
Z v
Min
ister
vo
or Im
mig
ratie
en
Asie
l jo
ined
cas
es
C-19
912
to C
-201
12
7 Novem
ber2
013
Bund
esre
publ
ik
Deut
schl
and
v Y
and
Z
C-71
11
and
C-99
11
5 Septem
ber2
012
Sala
hadi
n Ab
dulla
an
d O
ther
s C
-175
08
C-
176
08 C
-178
08
andC-17
908
2 M
arch
2010
Sam
ba D
iouf
C-6
910
28
July201
1
M C
-277
11
22
Novem
ber2
012
ECtH
R V
an K
uumlck
v Ge
rman
y
no 359
689712 June
20
03
62 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Euro
pean
Cou
rt o
f Hum
an R
ight
s (EC
tHR)
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
Aire
y v
Irela
nd
no 628
973
091
019
79
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 8
ECH
R ndash
right
to re
spec
t for
priv
ate
and
fam
ily li
fe ndash
Sta
te fa
iled
to a
ct
Artic
le 6
(1) ndash
righ
t to
fair
hear
ing
-the
app
lican
t was
with
out a
n ef
fect
ive
right
of a
cces
s to
the
High
Cou
rt
for p
urpo
ses o
f sep
arat
ion
proc
eedi
ngs
Para
24
lsquo24
The
Gov
ernm
ent c
onte
nd th
at th
e ap
plic
atio
n do
es e
njoy
acc
ess t
o th
e Hi
gh C
ourt
sinc
e sh
e is
free
to
go b
efor
e th
at c
ourt
with
out t
he a
ssist
ance
of a
law
yer
lsquoThe
Cou
rt d
oes n
ot re
gard
this
poss
ibili
ty o
f its
elf
as c
oncl
usiv
e of
the
mat
ter
The
Conv
entio
n is
inte
nded
to g
uara
ntee
not
righ
ts th
at a
re th
eore
tical
or i
lluso
ry b
ut ri
ghts
that
are
pra
ctic
al a
nd
effe
ctiv
e T
his i
s par
ticul
arly
so o
f the
righ
t of a
cces
s to
the
cour
ts in
vie
w o
f the
pro
min
ent p
lace
hel
d in
a d
emoc
ratic
soci
ety
by th
e rig
ht to
a fa
ir tr
ial
It m
ust t
here
fore
be
asce
rtai
ned
whe
ther
Mrs
Aire
yrsquos
appe
aran
ce b
efor
e th
e Hi
gh C
ourt
with
out t
he a
ssist
ance
of a
law
yer w
ould
be
effe
ctiv
e in
the
sens
e of
w
heth
er sh
e w
ould
be
able
to p
rese
nt h
er c
ase
prop
erly
and
satis
fact
orily
lsquoCon
trad
icto
ry v
iew
s on
this
ques
tion
wer
e ex
pres
sed
by th
e Go
vern
men
t and
the
Com
miss
ion
durin
g th
e or
al h
earin
gs I
t see
ms c
erta
in to
the
Cour
t tha
t the
app
lican
t wou
ld b
e at
a d
isadv
anta
ge if
her
hus
band
w
ere
repr
esen
ted
by a
law
yer a
nd sh
e w
ere
not
Qui
te a
part
from
this
even
tual
ity i
t is n
ot re
alist
ic i
n th
e Co
urtrsquos
opi
nion
to
supp
ose
that
in
litig
atio
n of
this
natu
re t
he a
pplic
ant c
ould
effe
ctiv
ely
cond
uct h
er
own
case
des
pite
the
assis
tanc
e w
hich
as w
as st
ress
ed b
y th
e Go
vern
men
t th
e ju
dge
affo
rds t
o pa
rtie
s ac
ting
in p
erso
n
lsquoIn Ir
elan
d a
dec
ree
of ju
dici
al se
para
tion
is no
t obt
aina
ble
in a
Dist
rict C
ourt
whe
re th
e pr
oced
ure
is re
lativ
ely
simpl
e b
ut o
nly
in th
e Hi
gh C
ourt
A sp
ecia
list i
n Iri
sh fa
mily
law
Mr
Alan
J S
hatt
er r
egar
ds
the
High
Cou
rt a
s the
leas
t acc
essib
le c
ourt
not
onl
y be
caus
e ldquof
ees p
ayab
le fo
r rep
rese
ntat
ion
befo
re it
ar
e ve
ry h
ighrdquo
but
also
by
reas
on o
f the
fact
that
ldquoth
e pr
oced
ure
for i
nstit
utin
g pr
ocee
ding
s
is co
mpl
ex
part
icul
arly
in th
e ca
se o
f tho
se p
roce
edin
gs w
hich
mus
t be
com
men
ced
by a
pet
ition
rdquo su
ch a
s tho
se fo
r se
para
tion
(Fam
ily L
aw in
the
Repu
blic
of I
rela
nd D
ublin
197
7 p
21)
Klas
s and
Oth
ers
no
502
971
6 Septem
ber1
978
De W
ilde
Oom
s and
Ve
rsyp
nos
283
266
28
356
6 2
899
66
18 Ju
ne197
1
Koumlni
gno 62
3273
28 Ju
ne197
8
Gold
ern
o 44
5170
21 Feb
ruary19
75
Belg
ian
lingu
istic
cas
e
nos 1
474
62 1
677
62
1691
62
176
963
19
946
3 2
126
64
23 Ju
ly196
8
Lued
icke
Bel
kace
m
and
Koccedil
nos
621
073
68
777
5 7
132
75
28 Novem
ber1
978
Mar
ckxno 68
3374
13 Ju
ne197
9
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 63
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquoFur
ther
mor
e li
tigat
ion
of th
is ki
nd i
n ad
ditio
n to
invo
lvin
g co
mpl
icat
ed p
oint
s of l
aw n
eces
sitat
es p
roof
of
adu
ltery
unn
atur
al p
ract
ices
or
as in
the
pres
ent c
ase
cru
elty
to
esta
blish
the
fact
s e
xper
t evi
denc
e m
ay h
ave
to b
e te
nder
ed a
nd w
itnes
ses m
ay h
ave
to b
e fo
und
cal
led
and
exam
ined
Wha
t is m
ore
m
arita
l disp
utes
ofte
n en
tail
an e
mot
iona
l inv
olve
men
t tha
t is s
carc
ely
com
patib
le w
ith th
e de
gree
of
obje
ctiv
ity re
quire
d by
adv
ocac
y in
cou
rt
lsquoFor
thes
e re
ason
s th
e Co
urt c
onsid
ers i
t mos
t im
prob
able
that
a p
erso
n in
Mrs
Aire
yrsquos p
ositi
on
(see
par
agra
ph 8
abo
ve) c
an e
ffect
ivel
y pr
esen
t his
or h
er o
wn
case
Thi
s vie
w is
cor
robo
rate
d by
the
Gove
rnm
entrsquos
repl
ies t
o th
e qu
estio
ns p
ut b
y th
e Co
urt
repl
ies w
hich
reve
al th
at in
eac
h of
the
255
judi
cial
sepa
ratio
n pr
ocee
ding
s ini
tiate
d in
Irel
and
in th
e pe
riod
from
Janu
ary
1972
to D
ecem
ber 1
978
w
ithou
t exc
eptio
n th
e pe
titio
ner w
as re
pres
ente
d by
a la
wye
r (se
e pa
ragr
aph
11 a
bove
)
lsquoThe
Cou
rt c
oncl
udes
from
the
fore
goin
g th
at th
e po
ssib
ility
to a
ppea
r in
pers
on b
efor
e th
e Hi
gh C
ourt
do
es n
ot p
rovi
de th
e ap
plic
ant w
ith a
n ef
fect
ive
right
of a
cces
s and
hen
ce t
hat i
t also
doe
s not
con
stitu
te
a do
mes
tic re
med
y w
hose
use
is d
eman
ded
by A
rtic
le 2
6 (a
rt 2
6)rsquo
Delc
ourt
no2
689
65
17 Ja
nuary19
70
De W
ilde
Oom
s and
Ve
rsyp
nos
283
266
28
356
6 2
899
66
10 M
arch197
2
Nat
iona
l Uni
on
of B
elgi
an P
olic
e
no 446
470
27
Octob
er197
5
ECtH
R
D v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no 302
4096
020
519
97
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
rem
oval
to S
t Kitt
s ndash in
hum
an a
nd d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t ndash m
edic
al tr
eatm
ent
Para
s 5
1-54
lsquo51
The
Cou
rt n
otes
that
the
appl
ican
t is i
n th
e ad
vanc
ed st
ages
of a
term
inal
and
incu
rabl
e ill
ness
At t
he
date
of t
he h
earin
g it
was
obs
erve
d th
at th
ere
had
been
a m
arke
d de
clin
e in
his
cond
ition
and
he
had
to
be tr
ansf
erre
d to
a h
ospi
tal
His c
ondi
tion
was
giv
ing
rise
to c
once
rn (s
ee p
arag
raph
21
abov
e) T
he li
mite
d qu
ality
of l
ife h
e no
w e
njoy
s res
ults
from
the
avai
labi
lity
of so
phist
icat
ed tr
eatm
ent a
nd m
edic
atio
n in
th
e U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m a
nd th
e ca
re a
nd k
indn
ess a
dmin
ister
ed b
y a
char
itabl
e or
gani
satio
n H
e ha
s bee
n co
unse
lled
on h
ow to
app
roac
h de
ath
and
has f
orm
ed b
onds
with
his
care
rs (s
ee p
arag
raph
19
abov
e)
Soer
ing
v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
mn
o 14
03888
7 July198
9
Vilv
araj
ah a
nd O
ther
s v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no
s 131
638
7
1316
487
131
658
7
1344
787
134
488
7
30 Octob
er199
1
64 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo52
The
abr
upt w
ithdr
awal
of t
hese
faci
litie
s will
ent
ail t
he m
ost d
ram
atic
con
sequ
ence
s for
him
It i
s not
di
sput
ed th
at h
is re
mov
al w
ill h
aste
n hi
s dea
th T
here
is a
serio
us d
ange
r tha
t the
con
ditio
ns o
f adv
ersit
y w
hich
aw
ait h
im in
St K
itts w
ill fu
rthe
r red
uce
his a
lread
y lim
ited
life
expe
ctan
cy a
nd su
bjec
t him
to
acut
e m
enta
l and
phy
sical
suffe
ring
Any
med
ical
trea
tmen
t whi
ch h
e m
ight
hop
e to
rece
ive
ther
e co
uld
not c
onte
nd w
ith th
e in
fect
ions
whi
ch h
e m
ay p
ossib
ly c
ontr
act o
n ac
coun
t of h
is la
ck o
f she
lter a
nd o
f a
prop
er d
iet a
s wel
l as e
xpos
ure
to th
e he
alth
and
sani
tatio
n pr
oble
ms w
hich
bes
et th
e po
pula
tion
of
St K
itts (
see
para
grap
h 32
abo
ve)
Whi
le h
e m
ay h
ave
a co
usin
in S
t Kitt
s (se
e pa
ragr
aph
18 a
bove
) no
ev
iden
ce h
as b
een
addu
ced
to sh
ow w
heth
er th
is pe
rson
wou
ld b
e w
illin
g or
in a
pos
ition
to a
tten
d to
the
need
s of a
term
inal
ly il
l man
The
re is
no
evid
ence
of a
ny o
ther
form
of m
oral
or s
ocia
l sup
port
Nor
has
it
been
show
n w
heth
er th
e ap
plic
ant w
ould
be
guar
ante
ed a
bed
in e
ither
of t
he h
ospi
tals
on th
e isl
and
whi
ch a
ccor
ding
to th
e Go
vern
men
t ca
re fo
r AID
S pa
tient
s (se
e pa
ragr
aph
17 a
bove
)
lsquo53
In v
iew
of t
hese
exc
eptio
nal c
ircum
stan
ces a
nd b
earin
g in
min
d th
e cr
itica
l sta
ge n
ow re
ache
d in
th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
fata
l illn
ess
the
impl
emen
tatio
n of
the
deci
sion
to re
mov
e hi
m to
St K
itts w
ould
am
ount
to
inhu
man
trea
tmen
t by
the
resp
onde
nt S
tate
in v
iola
tion
of A
rtic
le 3
(art
3)
The
Cour
t also
not
es in
th
is re
spec
t tha
t the
resp
onde
nt S
tate
has
ass
umed
resp
onsib
ility
for t
reat
ing
the
appl
ican
trsquos c
ondi
tion
since
Aug
ust 1
994
He
has b
ecom
e re
liant
on
the
med
ical
and
pal
liativ
e ca
re w
hich
he
is at
pre
sent
re
ceiv
ing
and
is no
dou
bt p
sych
olog
ical
ly p
repa
red
for d
eath
in a
n en
viro
nmen
t whi
ch is
bot
h fa
mili
ar a
nd
com
pass
iona
te A
lthou
gh it
can
not b
e sa
id th
at th
e co
nditi
ons w
hich
wou
ld c
onfr
ont h
im in
the
rece
ivin
g co
untr
y ar
e th
emse
lves
a b
reac
h of
the
stan
dard
s of A
rtic
le 3
(art
3)
his r
emov
al w
ould
exp
ose
him
to
a re
al ri
sk o
f dyi
ng u
nder
mos
t dist
ress
ing
circ
umst
ance
s and
wou
ld th
us a
mou
nt to
inhu
man
trea
tmen
t W
ithou
t cal
ling
into
que
stio
n th
e go
od fa
ith o
f the
und
erta
king
giv
en to
the
Cour
t by
the
Gove
rnm
ent (
see
para
grap
h 44
abo
ve)
it is
to b
e no
ted
that
the
abov
e co
nsid
erat
ions
mus
t be
seen
as w
ider
in sc
ope
than
th
e qu
estio
n w
heth
er o
r not
the
appl
ican
t is f
it to
trav
el b
ack
to S
t Kitt
s
lsquo54
Aga
inst
this
back
grou
nd th
e Co
urt e
mph
asise
s tha
t alie
ns w
ho h
ave
serv
ed th
eir p
rison
sent
ence
s an
d ar
e su
bjec
t to
expu
lsion
can
not i
n pr
inci
ple
clai
m a
ny e
ntitl
emen
t to
rem
ain
in th
e te
rrito
ry o
f a
Cont
ract
ing
Stat
e in
ord
er to
con
tinue
to b
enef
it fr
om m
edic
al s
ocia
l or o
ther
form
s of a
ssist
ance
pr
ovid
ed b
y th
e ex
pelli
ng S
tate
dur
ing
thei
r sta
y in
pris
on H
owev
er i
n th
e ve
ry e
xcep
tiona
l circ
umst
ance
s of
this
case
and
giv
en th
e co
mpe
lling
hum
anita
rian
cons
ider
atio
ns a
t sta
ke i
t mus
t be
conc
lude
d th
at th
e im
plem
enta
tion
of th
e de
cisio
n to
rem
ove
the
appl
ican
t wou
ld b
e a
viol
atio
n of
Art
icle
3 (a
rt 3
)rsquo
Chah
al v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(GC
) no
224
1493
15 Novem
ber1
995
Ahm
ed v
Aus
tria
no
259
64
17 Decem
ber1
996
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 65
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
Mub
ilanz
ila M
ayek
a an
d Ka
niki
Mitu
nga
v Be
lgiu
m
no 131
7803
121
020
06
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
dete
ntio
n ndash
depo
rtat
ion
ndash in
hum
an tr
eatm
ent o
f a c
hild
ndash A
rtic
le 8
ECH
R ndash
resp
ect f
or
fam
ily li
fe ndash
the
dete
ntio
n of
a fi
ve-y
ear-o
ld c
hild
in a
n ad
ult f
acili
ty w
ith o
nly
tele
phon
e co
mm
unic
atio
n w
ith h
er m
othe
r
Para
50
lsquo50
The
Cou
rt n
otes
that
the
seco
nd a
pplic
ant
who
was
onl
y fiv
e ye
ars o
ld w
as h
eld
in th
e sa
me
cond
ition
sas a
dults
She
was
det
aine
d in
a c
entr
e th
at h
ad in
itial
ly b
een
desig
ned
for a
dults
eve
n th
ough
sh
e w
as u
nacc
ompa
nied
by
her p
aren
ts a
nd n
o on
e ha
d be
en a
ssig
ned
to lo
ok a
fter h
er N
o m
easu
res
wer
e ta
ken
to e
nsur
e th
at sh
e re
ceiv
ed p
rope
r cou
nsel
ling
and
educ
atio
nal a
ssist
ance
from
qua
lifie
d pe
rson
nel s
peci
ally
man
date
d fo
r tha
t pur
pose
Tha
t situ
atio
n la
sted
for t
wo
mon
ths
It is
furt
her n
oted
th
at th
e re
spon
dent
Sta
te h
ave
ackn
owle
dged
that
the
plac
e of
det
entio
n w
as n
ot a
dapt
ed to
her
nee
ds
and
that
ther
e w
ere
no a
dequ
ate
stru
ctur
es in
pla
ce a
t the
tim
ersquo
A v
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 10019978841096
23 Sep
tembe
r1998
Adam
v G
erm
any
(dec
) no
43359984 Octob
er
2001
Aert
s v B
elgi
um
no 6119978451051
30 Ju
ly1998
Amro
llahi
v D
enm
ark
no
568110011 July
2002
Amuu
r v Fr
ance
no
197769225 June
19
96
Beld
joud
i v Fr
ance
no
120838626 March
1992
Beye
ler v
Ital
y
no 33202965 Janu
ary
2000
Botta
v It
aly
no
1531996772973
24 Fe
bruary1998
Boul
tif v
Switz
erla
nd
no 54273002August
2001
Boza
no v
Fran
ce
no 999082
18 Decem
ber1
986
66 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Caki
ci v
Turk
ey [G
C]
no 23657948 Ju
ly
1999
Chah
al v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(GC
) no
2241493
15 Novem
ber1
995
Čonka
v Be
lgiu
m
no 51564995 Fe
bruary
2002
DG v
Irel
and
no
394749816 May
2002
De W
ilde
Oom
s and
Ve
rsyp
nos
283
266
28
356
6 2
899
66
18 Ju
ne1971
Erik
sson
v Sw
eden
no
113738522 June
19
89
Gnah
oreacute
v Fr
ance
no
4003198
19 Sep
tembe
r2000
Ham
iyet
Kap
lan
and
Oth
ers v
Turk
ey
no 3674997
13 Sep
tembe
r2005
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 67
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Hokk
anen
v F
inla
nd
no 1982392
23 Sep
tembe
r1994
Igna
ccol
o-Ze
nide
v
Rom
ania
no
3167996
25 Janu
ary2000
Joha
nsen
v N
orw
ay
no 1738390
7 Au
gust
199
6
KF v
Ger
man
y
no 1441996765962
27 Novem
ber1
997
Keeg
an v
Irel
and
no 1696990
26 M
ay1994
Mok
rani
v Fr
ance
no
5220699
15 Ju
ly2003
Mou
staq
uim
v B
elgi
um
no 1231386
18 Fe
bruary1991
Niem
ietz
v G
erm
any
no
1371088
16 Decem
ber1
992
Nuut
inen
v F
inla
nd
no 328429627 June
20
00
Olss
on v
Swed
en (n
o 1)
no
104658324 March
1988
68 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Osm
an v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no
8719978711083
28 Octob
er1998
Rani
nen
v Fi
nlan
d
no 1521996771972
16 Decem
ber1
997
Selm
ouni
v Fr
ance
GC
no
258039428 July
1999
Slive
nko
v La
tvia
[GC]
no
48321999 Octob
er
2003
Soer
ing
v Un
ited
King
domno 1403888
7 July1989
Von
Hann
over
v
Germ
any
no
593200024 June
20
04
Wee
ks v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no 978782
2 March1987
Win
terw
erp
v th
e Ne
ther
land
s no
63017324 Octob
er
1979
Z an
d O
ther
s v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m G
C
no 293299510 May
2001
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 69
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
Sala
h Sh
eekh
v th
e N
ethe
rland
s
no 194
804
110
120
07
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
effe
ctiv
e re
med
y ndash
Net
herla
nds a
utho
ritie
s ref
used
to su
spen
d ex
pulsi
on p
endi
ng
a de
cisio
n on
his
obje
ctio
n ag
ains
t the
man
ner o
f tha
t exp
ulsio
n
Para
s 1
40-1
49
lsquo140
Th
e Co
urt c
onsid
ers i
t mos
t unl
ikel
y th
at th
e ap
plic
ant
who
is a
mem
ber o
f the
Ash
raf m
inor
ity
ndash on
e of
the
grou
ps m
akin
g up
the
Bena
diri
(or R
eer H
amar
) min
ority
gro
up ndash
and
who
hai
ls fr
om th
e so
uth
of S
omal
ia w
ould
be
able
to o
btai
n pr
otec
tion
from
a c
lan
in th
e ldquor
elat
ivel
y sa
ferdquo
area
s A
ccor
ding
to
the
Gove
rnm
entrsquos
Nov
embe
r 200
4 co
untr
y re
port
ind
ivid
uals
who
do
not o
rigin
ate
from
Som
alila
nd
or P
untla
nd a
nd w
ho a
re u
nabl
e to
cla
im c
lan
prot
ectio
n th
ere
alm
ost i
nvar
iabl
y en
d up
in m
isera
ble
sett
lem
ents
for t
he in
tern
ally
disp
lace
d w
ith n
o re
al c
hanc
e of
pro
per i
nteg
ratio
n T
hey
are
said
to h
ave
a m
argi
nal
isola
ted
posit
ion
in so
ciet
y w
hich
rend
ers t
hem
vul
nera
ble
and
mor
e lik
ely
than
mos
t to
be
the
vict
ims o
f crim
e In
deed
the
thre
e m
ost v
ulne
rabl
e gr
oups
in S
omal
ia a
re sa
id to
be
IDPs
min
oriti
es
and
retu
rnee
s fro
m e
xile
If e
xpel
led
to th
e ldquor
elat
ivel
y sa
ferdquo
area
s th
e ap
plic
ant w
ould
fall
into
all
thre
e ca
tego
ries
In th
is co
ntex
t it s
houl
d fu
rthe
r be
note
d th
at a
gain
acc
ordi
ng to
the
Gove
rnm
ent
ther
e ar
e so
few
Ben
adiri
in th
e ldquor
elat
ivel
y sa
ferdquo
area
s tha
t no
gene
ral s
tate
men
ts c
an b
e m
ade
abou
t the
ir po
sitio
n th
ere
How
ever
the
Cou
rt c
onsid
ers t
hat i
t is n
ot n
eces
sary
to e
xam
ine
whe
ther
the
cond
ition
s in
whi
ch
the
appl
ican
t is l
ikel
y to
end
up
if ex
pelle
d to
Som
alila
nd o
r Pun
tland
are
such
as t
o ex
pose
him
to a
real
ris
k of
bei
ng su
bjec
ted
to tr
eatm
ent i
n vi
olat
ion
of A
rtic
le 3
sin
ce it
is o
f the
opi
nion
that
that
pro
visio
n st
ands
in a
ny e
vent
in th
e w
ay o
f suc
h an
exp
ulsio
n fo
r the
follo
win
g re
ason
s
Ahm
ed v
Aus
tria
no
259
6494
17 Decem
ber1
996
Chah
al v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(GC
) no
224
1493
15 Novem
ber1
995
Čonka
v Be
lgiu
m
no 515
6499
5 Februa
ry200
2
HLR
v Fr
ance
no
245
739429 Ap
ril
1997
Hila
l v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 452
76996 M
arch
2001
Mam
atku
lov
and
Aska
rov
v Tu
rkey
[GC]
no
s 468
279
9 an
d 46
951
99
Selm
ouni
v F
ranc
e [GC]2
8 July199
9
no 258
0394
4 Februa
ry200
5
70 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
141
In
its p
ositi
on p
aper
of J
anua
ry 2
004
and
its a
dviso
ry o
f Nov
embe
r 200
5 U
NHC
R st
ates
its
oppo
sitio
n to
the
forc
ed re
turn
of r
ejec
ted
asyl
um se
eker
s to
area
s of S
omal
ia fr
om w
hich
they
do
not
orig
inat
e e
mph
asisi
ng th
at th
ere
is no
inte
rnal
flig
ht a
ltern
ativ
e av
aila
ble
in S
omal
ia I
t is n
ever
thel
ess
to b
e no
ted
that
it d
oes n
ot a
ppea
r to
be U
NHC
Rrsquos p
ositi
on th
at th
e in
divi
dual
s con
cern
ed w
ould
hav
e a
wel
l-fou
nded
fear
of p
erse
cutio
n w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 1
of t
he 1
951
Conv
entio
n in
the
area
s it
cons
ider
s saf
e R
athe
r th
e or
gani
satio
nrsquos c
once
rns a
re fo
cuse
d on
the
poss
ible
des
tabi
lisin
g ef
fect
s of
an
influ
x of
invo
lunt
ary
retu
rnee
s on
the
alre
ady
over
stre
tche
d ab
sorp
tion
capa
city
of S
omal
iland
an
d Pu
ntla
nd a
s wel
l as t
he d
ire si
tuat
ion
in w
hich
retu
rnee
s fin
d th
emse
lves
Whi
le th
e Co
urt b
y no
m
eans
wish
es to
det
ract
from
the
acut
e pe
rtin
ence
of s
ocio
-eco
nom
ic a
nd h
uman
itaria
n co
nsid
erat
ions
to
the
issue
of f
orce
d re
turn
s of r
ejec
ted
asyl
um se
eker
s to
a pa
rtic
ular
par
t of t
heir
coun
try
or o
rigin
su
ch c
onsid
erat
ions
do
not n
eces
saril
y ha
ve a
bea
ring
and
cer
tain
ly n
ot a
dec
isive
one
on
the
ques
tion
whe
ther
the
pers
ons c
once
rned
wou
ld fa
ce a
real
risk
of i
ll-tr
eatm
ent w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 3
of
the
Conv
entio
n in
thos
e ar
eas
Mor
eove
r Ar
ticle
3 d
oes n
ot a
s suc
h p
recl
ude
Cont
ract
ing
Stat
es fr
om
plac
ing
relia
nce
on th
e ex
isten
ce o
f an
inte
rnal
flig
ht a
ltern
ativ
e in
thei
r ass
essm
ent o
f an
indi
vidu
alrsquos
clai
m th
at a
retu
rn to
his
or h
er c
ount
ry o
f orig
in w
ould
exp
ose
him
or h
er to
a re
al ri
sk o
f bei
ng
subj
ecte
d to
trea
tmen
t pro
scrib
ed b
y th
at p
rovi
sion
How
ever
the
Cou
rt h
as p
revi
ously
hel
d th
at th
e in
dire
ct re
mov
al o
f an
alie
n to
an
inte
rmed
iary
cou
ntry
doe
s not
affe
ct th
e re
spon
sibili
ty o
f the
exp
ellin
g Co
ntra
ctin
g St
ate
to e
nsur
e th
at h
e or
she
is no
t as
a re
sult
of it
s dec
ision
to e
xpel
exp
osed
to tr
eatm
ent
cont
rary
to A
rtic
le 3
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n It
sees
no
reas
on to
hol
d di
ffere
ntly
whe
re th
e ex
pulsi
on is
as i
n th
e pr
esen
t cas
e to
take
pla
ce n
ot to
an
inte
rmed
iary
cou
ntry
but
to a
par
ticul
ar re
gion
of t
he c
ount
ry
of o
rigin
The
Cou
rt c
onsid
ers t
hat a
s a p
reco
nditi
on fo
r rel
ying
on
an in
tern
al fl
ight
alte
rnat
ive
cert
ain
guar
ante
es h
ave
to b
e in
pla
ce t
he p
erso
n to
be
expe
lled
mus
t be
able
to tr
avel
to th
e ar
ea c
once
rned
ga
in a
dmitt
ance
and
sett
le th
ere
faili
ng w
hich
an
issue
und
er A
rtic
le 3
may
aris
e th
e m
ore
so if
in th
e ab
senc
e of
such
gua
rant
ees t
here
is a
pos
sibili
ty o
f the
exp
elle
e en
ding
up
in a
par
t of t
he c
ount
ry o
f or
igin
whe
re h
e or
she
may
be
subj
ecte
d to
ill-t
reat
men
t
TI v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(dec)no
438
4498
7 March200
0
Vilv
araj
ah a
nd O
ther
s v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no
s 131
638
7
1316
487
131
658
7
1344
787
134
488
7
30 Octob
er199
1
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 71
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
142
The
Cou
rt o
bser
ves t
hat t
he a
utho
ritie
s of S
omal
iland
hav
e iss
ued
a de
cree
ndash w
hich
adm
itted
ly
has n
ot b
een
enfo
rced
to d
ate
ndash or
derin
g al
l disp
lace
d pe
rson
s not
orig
inal
ly fr
om S
omal
iland
to le
ave
the
coun
try
and
that
the
Punt
land
aut
horit
ies a
re sa
id to
hav
e gr
own
war
y of
non
-Pun
tland
ers c
omin
g to
th
eir t
errit
ory
and
have
mad
e it
clea
r tha
t the
y w
ill o
nly
adm
it to
the
terr
itory
they
con
trol
thos
e w
ho a
re
of th
e sa
me
clan
or w
ho w
ere
prev
ious
ly re
siden
t in
the
area
Mor
e im
port
antly
the
aut
horit
ies o
f bot
h en
titie
s hav
e in
form
ed th
e re
spon
dent
Gov
ernm
ent o
f the
ir op
posit
ion
to th
e fo
rced
dep
orta
tions
of
in
the
case
of S
omal
iland
non
-Som
alila
nder
s and
in
the
case
of P
untla
nd ldquo
refu
gees
rega
rdle
ss o
f whi
ch
part
of S
omal
ia th
ey o
rigin
ally
cam
e fr
om w
ithou
t see
king
eith
er th
e ac
cept
ance
or p
rior a
ppro
valrdquo
of t
he
Punt
land
aut
horit
ies
In a
dditi
on b
oth
the
Som
alila
nd a
nd P
untla
nd a
utho
ritie
s hav
e in
dica
ted
that
they
do
not
acc
ept t
he E
U tr
avel
doc
umen
t
143
Whi
le it
app
ears
that
the
stan
ce o
f the
Som
alila
nd a
nd P
untla
nd a
utho
ritie
s has
led
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
Gov
ernm
ent t
o re
frai
n fr
om e
xpel
ling
reje
cted
asy
lum
seek
ers b
elon
ging
to th
e Be
nadi
ri to
thos
e re
gion
s th
e N
ethe
rland
s Gov
ernm
ent h
ave
insis
ted
that
such
exp
ulsio
ns a
re p
ossib
le a
nd h
ave
poin
ted
out t
hat i
n th
e ev
ent o
f an
expe
llee
bein
g de
nied
ent
ry h
e or
she
wou
ld b
e al
low
ed to
retu
rn to
the
Net
herla
nds
Bea
ring
in m
ind
that
acc
ordi
ng to
info
rmat
ion
prov
ided
by
the
resp
onde
nt G
over
nmen
t So
mal
is ar
e fr
ee to
ent
er a
nd le
ave
the
coun
try
as th
e St
ate
bord
ers a
re su
bjec
t to
very
few
con
trol
s th
e Co
urt a
ccep
ts th
at th
e Go
vern
men
t may
wel
l suc
ceed
in re
mov
ing
the
appl
ican
t to
eith
er S
omal
iland
or
Pun
tland
(alth
ough
in th
e lig
ht o
f a re
cent
BBC
repo
rt th
is is
not c
erta
in)
How
ever
thi
s by
no m
eans
co
nstit
utes
a g
uara
ntee
that
the
appl
ican
t on
ce th
ere
will
be
allo
wed
or e
nabl
ed to
stay
in th
e te
rrito
ry
and
with
no
mon
itorin
g of
dep
orte
d re
ject
ed a
sylu
m se
eker
s tak
ing
plac
e th
e Go
vern
men
t hav
e no
way
of
ver
ifyin
g w
heth
er o
r not
the
appl
ican
t suc
ceed
s in
gain
ing
adm
ittan
ce I
n vi
ew o
f the
pos
ition
take
n by
th
e Pu
ntla
nd a
nd p
artic
ular
ly th
e So
mal
iland
aut
horit
ies
it se
ems t
o th
e Co
urt r
athe
r unl
ikel
y th
at th
e ap
plic
ant w
ould
be
allo
wed
to se
ttle
ther
e C
onse
quen
tly t
here
is a
real
cha
nce
of h
is be
ing
rem
oved
or
of h
is ha
ving
no
alte
rnat
ive
but t
o go
to a
reas
of t
he c
ount
ry w
hich
bot
h th
e Go
vern
men
t and
UN
HCR
cons
ider
uns
afe
144
As r
egar
ds th
e isl
ands
off
the
coas
t of s
outh
ern
Som
alia
whi
ch a
re c
onsid
ered
ldquore
lativ
ely
safe
rdquo by
the
Gove
rnm
ent
the
Cour
t not
es th
at th
ese
are
inha
bite
d by
mem
bers
of t
he D
arod
Mar
ehan
cla
n an
d of
a m
inor
ity d
iffer
ent f
rom
the
one
to w
hich
the
appl
ican
t bel
ongs
It h
as n
ot b
een
sugg
este
d th
at
the
appl
ican
t wou
ld b
e ab
le to
obt
ain
clan
pro
tect
ion
ther
e A
s with
Som
alila
nd a
nd P
untla
nd t
here
are
sim
ilarly
no
guar
ante
es th
at th
e ap
plic
ant w
ould
be
able
to se
ttle
ther
e q
uite
apa
rt fr
om th
e fa
ct th
at th
e isl
ands
can
be
reac
hed
only
via
ldquore
lativ
ely
unsa
ferdquo
terr
itory
72 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
145
The
que
stio
n m
ust t
here
fore
be
exam
ined
whe
ther
if t
he a
pplic
ant w
ere
to e
nd u
p in
are
as o
f So
mal
ia o
ther
than
Som
alila
nd o
r Pun
tland
he
wou
ld ru
n a
real
risk
of b
eing
exp
osed
to tr
eatm
ent
cont
rary
to A
rtic
le 3
In
this
cont
ext
the
Cour
t is a
war
e th
at th
e Go
vern
men
t do
not c
onsid
er a
reas
in
Som
alia
ldquore
lativ
ely
unsa
ferdquo
beca
use
of a
ny ri
sk th
at in
divi
dual
s may
run
ther
e of
bei
ng su
bjec
ted
to
trea
tmen
t in
brea
ch o
f Art
icle
3 o
f the
Con
vent
ion
but
bec
ause
of a
n ov
eral
l situ
atio
n w
hich
is su
ch th
at
in th
e op
inio
n of
the
Min
ister
of I
mm
igra
tion
and
Inte
grat
ion
a re
turn
to th
ose
area
s wou
ld c
onst
itute
an
exce
ptio
nally
har
sh m
easu
re
146
The
Cou
rt c
onsid
ers t
hat t
he tr
eatm
ent t
o w
hich
the
appl
ican
t cla
imed
he
had
been
subj
ecte
d pr
ior
to h
is le
avin
g So
mal
ia c
an b
e cl
assif
ied
as in
hum
an w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 3
mem
bers
of a
cla
n be
at k
icke
d ro
bbed
int
imid
ated
and
har
asse
d hi
m o
n m
any
occa
sions
and
mad
e hi
m c
arry
out
forc
ed
labo
ur M
embe
rs o
f the
sam
e cl
an a
lso k
illed
his
fath
er a
nd ra
ped
his s
ister
The
Cou
rt n
otes
that
the
part
icul
ar ndash
and
con
tinui
ng ndash
vul
nera
bilit
y to
this
kind
of h
uman
righ
ts a
buse
s of m
embe
rs o
f min
oriti
es
like
the
Ashr
af h
as b
een
wel
l-doc
umen
ted
147
Whi
le th
e N
ethe
rland
s aut
horit
ies w
ere
of th
e op
inio
n th
at th
e pr
oble
ms e
xper
ienc
ed b
y th
e ap
plic
ant w
ere
to b
e se
en a
s a c
onse
quen
ce o
f the
gen
eral
ly u
nsta
ble
situa
tion
in w
hich
crim
inal
gan
gs
freq
uent
ly b
ut a
rbitr
arily
int
imid
ated
and
thre
aten
ed p
eopl
e th
e Co
urt i
s of t
he v
iew
that
that
is
insu
ffici
ent t
o re
mov
e th
e tr
eatm
ent m
eted
out
to th
e ap
plic
ant f
rom
the
scop
e of
Art
icle
3 A
s set
out
ab
ove
the
exist
ence
of t
he o
blig
atio
n no
t to
expe
l is n
ot d
epen
dent
on
whe
ther
the
risk
of th
e tr
eatm
ent
stem
s fro
m fa
ctor
s whi
ch in
volv
e th
e re
spon
sibili
ty d
irect
or i
ndire
ct o
f the
aut
horit
ies o
f the
rece
ivin
g co
untr
y an
d Ar
ticle
3 m
ay th
us a
lso a
pply
in si
tuat
ions
whe
re th
e da
nger
em
anat
es fr
om p
erso
ns o
r gr
oups
of p
erso
ns w
ho a
re n
ot p
ublic
offi
cial
s W
hat i
s rel
evan
t in
this
cont
ext i
s whe
ther
the
appl
ican
t w
as a
ble
to o
btai
n pr
otec
tion
agai
nst a
nd se
ek re
dres
s for
the
acts
per
petr
ated
aga
inst
him
The
Cou
rt
cons
ider
s tha
t thi
s was
not
the
case
Mor
eove
r ha
ving
rega
rd to
the
info
rmat
ion
avai
labl
e th
e Co
urt i
s fa
r fro
m p
ersu
aded
that
the
situa
tion
has u
nder
gone
such
a su
bsta
ntia
l cha
nge
for t
he b
ette
r tha
t it c
ould
be
said
that
the
risk
of th
e ap
plic
ant b
eing
subj
ecte
d to
this
kind
of t
reat
men
t ane
w h
as b
een
rem
oved
or
that
he
wou
ld b
e ab
le to
obt
ain
prot
ectio
n fr
om th
e (lo
cal)
auth
oriti
es T
here
is n
o in
dica
tion
ther
efor
e
that
the
appl
ican
t wou
ld fi
nd h
imse
lf in
a si
gnifi
cant
ly d
iffer
ent s
ituat
ion
from
the
one
he fl
ed
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 73
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
148
The
Cou
rt w
ould
furt
her t
ake
issue
with
the
natio
nal a
utho
ritie
srsquo a
sses
smen
t tha
t the
trea
tmen
t to
whi
ch th
e ap
plic
ant w
as su
bjec
ted
was
met
ed o
ut a
rbitr
arily
It a
ppea
rs fr
om th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
acc
ount
that
he
and
his
fam
ily w
ere
targ
eted
bec
ause
they
bel
onge
d to
a m
inor
ity a
nd fo
r tha
t rea
son
it w
as k
now
n th
at th
ey h
ad n
o m
eans
of p
rote
ctio
n th
ey w
ere
easy
pre
y as
wer
e th
e ot
her t
hree
Ash
raf f
amili
es li
ving
in
the
sam
e vi
llage
The
Cou
rt w
ould
add
that
in
its o
pini
on t
he a
pplic
ant c
anno
t be
requ
ired
to e
stab
lish
the
exist
ence
of f
urth
er sp
ecia
l dist
ingu
ishin
g fe
atur
es c
once
rnin
g hi
m p
erso
nally
in o
rder
to sh
ow th
at h
e w
as a
nd c
ontin
ues t
o be
per
sona
lly a
t risk
In
this
cont
ext i
t is t
rue
that
a m
ere
poss
ibili
ty o
f ill-
trea
tmen
t is
insu
ffici
ent t
o gi
ve ri
se to
a b
reac
h of
Art
icle
3 S
uch
a sit
uatio
n ar
ose
in th
e ca
se o
f Vilv
araj
ah a
nd
Oth
ers v
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
whe
re th
e Co
urt f
ound
that
the
poss
ibili
ty o
f det
entio
n an
d ill
-tre
atm
ent
exist
ed in
resp
ect o
f you
ng m
ale
Tam
ils re
turn
ing
to S
ri La
nka
The
Cou
rt th
en in
siste
d th
at th
e ap
plic
ants
sh
ow th
at sp
ecia
l dist
ingu
ishin
g fe
atur
es e
xist
ed in
thei
r cas
es th
at c
ould
or o
ught
to h
ave
enab
led
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
aut
horit
ies t
o fo
rese
e th
at th
ey w
ould
be
trea
ted
in a
man
ner i
ncom
patib
le w
ith
Artic
le 3
How
ever
in
the
pres
ent c
ase
the
Cour
t con
sider
s o
n th
e ba
sis o
f the
app
lican
trsquos a
ccou
nt a
nd
the
info
rmat
ion
abou
t the
situ
atio
n in
the
ldquorel
ativ
ely
unsa
ferdquo
area
s of S
omal
ia in
so fa
r as m
embe
rs o
f the
As
hraf
min
ority
are
con
cern
ed t
hat i
t is f
ores
eeab
le th
at o
n hi
s ret
urn
the
appl
ican
t wou
ld b
e ex
pose
d to
trea
tmen
t in
brea
ch o
f Art
icle
3 I
t mig
ht re
nder
the
prot
ectio
n of
fere
d by
that
pro
visio
n ill
usor
y if
in
add
ition
to th
e fa
ct o
f his
belo
ngin
g to
the
Ashr
af ndash
whi
ch th
e Go
vern
men
t hav
e no
t disp
uted
ndash t
he
appl
ican
t wer
e re
quire
d to
show
the
exist
ence
of f
urth
er sp
ecia
l dist
ingu
ishin
g fe
atur
es
149
The
fore
goin
g co
nsid
erat
ions
are
suffi
cien
t to
enab
le th
e Co
urt t
o co
nclu
de th
at th
e ex
pulsi
on o
f the
ap
plic
ant t
o So
mal
ia a
s env
isage
d by
the
resp
onde
nt G
over
nmen
t wou
ld b
e in
vio
latio
n of
Art
icle
3 o
f the
Co
nven
tion
rsquo
74 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
N v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no 265
6505
270
520
08
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
rem
oval
to U
gand
a ndash
inhu
man
and
deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent ndash
med
ical
trea
tmen
t
Para
s 4
2-45
lsquo42
In su
mm
ary
the
Cour
t obs
erve
s tha
t sin
ce D
v t
he U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m it
has
con
siste
ntly
app
lied
the
follo
win
g pr
inci
ples
Alie
ns w
ho a
re su
bjec
t to
expu
lsion
can
not i
n pr
inci
ple
clai
m a
ny e
ntitl
emen
t to
rem
ain
in th
e te
rrito
ry o
f a C
ontr
actin
g St
ate
in o
rder
to c
ontin
ue to
ben
efit
from
med
ical
soc
ial o
r ot
her f
orm
s of a
ssist
ance
and
serv
ices
pro
vide
d by
the
expe
lling
Sta
te T
he fa
ct th
at th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
ci
rcum
stan
ces
incl
udin
g hi
s life
exp
ecta
ncy
wou
ld b
e sig
nific
antly
redu
ced
if he
wer
e to
be
rem
oved
from
th
e Co
ntra
ctin
g St
ate
is no
t suf
ficie
nt in
itse
lf to
giv
e ris
e to
bre
ach
of A
rtic
le 3
The
dec
ision
to re
mov
e an
alie
n w
ho is
suffe
ring
from
a se
rious
men
tal o
r phy
sical
illn
ess t
o a
coun
try
whe
re th
e fa
cilit
ies f
or
the
trea
tmen
t of t
hat i
llnes
s are
infe
rior t
o th
ose
avai
labl
e in
the
Cont
ract
ing
Stat
e m
ay ra
ise a
n iss
ue
unde
r Art
icle
3 b
ut o
nly
in a
ver
y ex
cept
iona
l cas
e w
here
the
hum
anita
rian
grou
nds a
gain
st th
e re
mov
al
are
com
pelli
ng I
n th
e D
v th
e U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m c
ase
the
very
exc
eptio
nal c
ircum
stan
ces w
ere
that
the
appl
ican
t was
crit
ical
ly il
l and
app
eare
d to
be
clos
e to
dea
th c
ould
not
be
guar
ante
ed a
ny n
ursin
g or
m
edic
al c
are
in h
is co
untr
y of
orig
in a
nd h
ad n
o fa
mily
ther
e w
illin
g or
abl
e to
car
e fo
r him
or p
rovi
de h
im
with
eve
n a
basic
leve
l of f
ood
shel
ter o
r soc
ial s
uppo
rt
lsquo43
The
Cou
rt d
oes n
ot e
xclu
de th
at th
ere
may
be
othe
r ver
y ex
cept
iona
l cas
es w
here
the
hum
anita
rian
cons
ider
atio
ns a
re e
qual
ly c
ompe
lling
How
ever
it c
onsid
ers t
hat i
t sho
uld
mai
ntai
n th
e hi
gh th
resh
old
set i
n D
v t
he U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m a
nd a
pplie
d in
its s
ubse
quen
t cas
e-la
w w
hich
it re
gard
s as c
orre
ct in
pr
inci
ple
giv
en th
at in
such
cas
es th
e al
lege
d fu
ture
har
m w
ould
em
anat
e no
t fro
m th
e in
tent
iona
l act
s or
omiss
ions
of p
ublic
aut
horit
ies o
r non
-Sta
te b
odie
s b
ut in
stea
d fr
om a
nat
ural
ly o
ccur
ring
illne
ss a
nd th
e la
ck o
f suf
ficie
nt re
sour
ces t
o de
al w
ith it
in th
e re
ceiv
ing
coun
try
Ahm
ed v
Aus
tria
no
259
6494
17 Decem
ber1
996
Aire
y v
Irela
nd
no 628
973
9 Octob
er
1979
Ameg
niga
n v
the
Net
herla
nds (
dec)
no
256
2904
25 Novem
ber2
004
Arci
la H
enao
v th
e N
ethe
rland
s (de
c)
no 136
690324 June
20
03
BB v
Fra
nce
no
4719
98950
116
5
7 Septem
ber1
998
Bens
aid
v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
mn
o 44
59998
6 Februa
ry200
1
D v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no
302
40962 M
ay
1997
HLR
v Fr
ance
no
245
739429 Ap
ril
1997
Jallo
h v
Germ
any
[GC]
no
548
100011 July
2006
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 75
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo44
Alth
ough
man
y of
the
right
s it c
onta
ins h
ave
impl
icat
ions
of a
soci
al o
r eco
nom
ic n
atur
e th
e Co
nven
tion
is es
sent
ially
dire
cted
at t
he p
rote
ctio
n of
civ
il an
d po
litic
al ri
ghts
(see
Aire
y v
Irel
and
9 Octob
er197
9sect26SeriesA
no 32
)Fu
rthe
rmorein
herentin
thewho
leofthe
Con
ventionisasearch
for a
fair
bala
nce
betw
een
the
dem
ands
of t
he g
ener
al in
tere
st o
f the
com
mun
ity a
nd th
e re
quire
men
ts
of th
e pr
otec
tion
of th
e in
divi
dual
rsquos fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts (
see
Soer
ing
v th
e U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m7
July198
9
sect89
SeriesA
no 16
1)A
dvan
cesinmed
icalsc
ienceto
getherwith
socialand
econo
micdifferen
ces
betw
een
coun
trie
s e
ntai
l tha
t the
leve
l of t
reat
men
t ava
ilabl
e in
the
Cont
ract
ing
Stat
e an
d th
e co
untr
y of
or
igin
may
var
y co
nsid
erab
ly W
hile
it is
nec
essa
ry g
iven
the
fund
amen
tal i
mpo
rtan
ce o
f Art
icle
3 in
the
Conv
entio
n sy
stem
for
the
Cour
t to
reta
in a
deg
ree
of fl
exib
ility
to p
reve
nt e
xpul
sion
in v
ery
exce
ptio
nal
case
s A
rtic
le 3
doe
s not
pla
ce a
n ob
ligat
ion
on th
e Co
ntra
ctin
g St
ate
to a
llevi
ate
such
disp
ariti
es th
roug
h th
e pr
ovisi
on o
f fre
e an
d un
limite
d he
alth
car
e to
all
alie
ns w
ithou
t a ri
ght t
o st
ay w
ithin
its j
urisd
ictio
n
A fin
ding
to th
e co
ntra
ry w
ould
pla
ce to
o gr
eat a
bur
den
on th
e Co
ntra
ctin
g St
ates
lsquo45
Fin
ally
the
Cour
t obs
erve
s tha
t al
thou
gh th
e pr
esen
t app
licat
ion
in c
omm
on w
ith m
ost o
f tho
se
refe
rred
to a
bove
is c
once
rned
with
the
expu
lsion
of a
per
son
with
an
HIV
and
Aids
-rel
ated
con
ditio
n th
e sa
me
prin
cipl
es m
ust a
pply
in re
latio
n to
the
expu
lsion
of a
ny p
erso
n af
flict
ed w
ith a
ny se
rious
nat
ural
ly
occu
rrin
g ph
ysic
al o
r men
tal i
llnes
s whi
ch m
ay c
ause
suffe
ring
pai
n an
d re
duce
d lif
e ex
pect
ancy
and
re
quire
spec
ialis
ed m
edic
al tr
eatm
ent w
hich
may
not
be
so re
adily
ava
ilabl
e in
the
appl
ican
trsquos c
ount
ry o
f or
igin
or w
hich
may
be
avai
labl
e on
ly a
t sub
stan
tial c
ostrsquo
Kara
ra v
Fin
land
no
409
009829 May
1998
Keen
an v
Uni
ted
King
domn
o 27
22995
3 Ap
ril200
1
Kudl
a v
Pola
nd
[GC]n
o 30
21096
26
Octob
er200
0
Nda
ngoy
a v
Swed
en
(dec)22
June
200
4
no 178
6803
Pret
ty v
Uni
ted
King
domn
o 23
4602
29 April20
02
Pric
e v
Uni
ted
King
domn
o 33
39496
10
July200
1
SCC
v Sw
eden
(dec)no
465
5399
15 Feb
ruary20
00
Saad
i v It
aly
[GC]
no
372
0106
28 Feb
ruary20
08
Soer
ing
v Un
ited
King
dom
no 14
03888
7 July198
9
76 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
MSS
v B
elgi
um a
nd
Gre
ece
no 306
9609
210
120
11
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
cond
ition
s of d
eten
tion
ndash Ar
ticle
13
ECHR
ndash sh
ortc
omin
gs in
the
asyl
um p
roce
dure
Para
219
lsquo219
The
Cou
rt h
as h
eld
on n
umer
ous o
ccas
ions
that
to fa
ll w
ithin
the
scop
e of
Art
icle
3 th
e ill
- tre
atm
ent
mus
t att
ain
a m
inim
um le
vel o
f sev
erity
The
ass
essm
ent o
f thi
s min
imum
is re
lativ
e it
dep
ends
on
all t
he
circ
umst
ance
s of t
he c
ase
such
as t
he d
urat
ion
of th
e tr
eatm
ent a
nd it
s phy
sical
or m
enta
l effe
cts a
nd i
n so
me
inst
ance
s th
e se
x a
ge a
nd st
ate
of h
ealth
of t
he v
ictim
rsquo
Para
251
lsquo251
The
Cou
rt a
ttac
hes c
onsid
erab
le im
port
ance
to th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
stat
us a
s an
asyl
um-s
eeke
r and
as
such
a m
embe
r of a
par
ticul
arly
und
erpr
ivile
ged
and
vuln
erab
le p
opul
atio
n gr
oup
in n
eed
of sp
ecia
l pr
otec
tion
It n
otes
the
exist
ence
of a
bro
ad c
onse
nsus
at t
he in
tern
atio
nal a
nd E
urop
ean
leve
l con
cern
ing
this
need
for s
peci
al p
rote
ctio
n a
s evi
denc
ed b
y th
e Ge
neva
Con
vent
ion
the
rem
it an
d th
e ac
tiviti
es o
f th
e U
NHC
R an
d th
e st
anda
rds s
et o
ut in
the
Rece
ptio
n Di
rect
ive
rsquo
Para
254
lsquo254
It o
bser
ves t
hat t
he si
tuat
ion
in w
hich
the
appl
ican
t has
foun
d hi
mse
lf is
part
icul
arly
serio
us H
e al
lege
dly
spen
t mon
ths l
ivin
g in
a st
ate
of th
e m
ost e
xtre
me
pove
rty
unab
le to
cat
er fo
r his
mos
t bas
ic
need
s fo
od h
ygie
ne a
nd a
pla
ce to
live
Add
ed to
that
was
the
ever
-pre
sent
fear
of b
eing
att
acke
d an
d ro
bbed
and
the
tota
l lac
k of
any
like
lihoo
d of
his
situa
tion
impr
ovin
g It
was
to e
scap
e fr
om th
at si
tuat
ion
of in
secu
rity
and
of m
ater
ial a
nd p
sych
olog
ical
wan
t tha
t he
trie
d se
vera
l tim
es to
leav
e Gr
eece
rsquo
AA v
Gre
ece
no
121
860822 July
2010
Amuu
r v F
ranc
e
no 197
769225 June
19
96
Assa
nidz
e v
Geor
gia
[GC]
nos
715
030
1
8 Ap
ril200
4
Bati
and
Oth
ers
v Tu
rkey
nos
330
979
6 an
d57
83400
3 Ju
ne
2004
Bosp
horu
s Hav
a Yo
llari
Turiz
m v
Tic
aret
An
onim
Sirk
eti v
Irel
and
[GC]n
o 45
03698
30
June
200
5
Bron
iow
ski v
Pol
and
[GC]n
o 31
44396
28
Sep
tembe
r200
5
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 77
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Brya
n v
Uni
ted
King
domn
o 19
17891
22
Novem
ber1
995
Budi
na v
Rus
sia (
dec)
no
456
030516 June
20
09
Caki
ci v
Tur
key
[GC]
no
236
57948 Ju
ly
1999
Cham
aiumlev
Sha
may
ev
and
Oth
ers v
Geo
rgia
an
d Ru
ssia
no
363
780212 Ap
ril
2005
Čonka
v Be
lgiu
m
no 515
6499
5 Februa
ry200
2
De W
ilde
Oom
s and
Ve
rsyp
nos
283
266
28
356
6 2
899
66
18 Ju
ne197
1
Dora
n v
Irela
nd
no 503
899931 July
2003
Gebr
emed
hin
[Gab
eram
adhi
en]
v Fr
ancen
o 25
38905
26
April20
07
HLR
v Fr
ance
no
245
739429 Ap
ril
1997
78 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Jaba
ri v T
urke
y
no 400359811 July
2000
KRS v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(dec)no
3273308
2 De
cember2
008
Kudl
a v P
olan
d [GC]no 3021096
26 Octob
er2000
Labi
ta c
Italy
[GC]
no
26772956 April
2000
Mus
ial v
Pol
and
[GC]
no
245579425 March
1999
Muumls
lim v
Turk
ey
no 535669925 Ap
ril
2005
NA v
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 259040717 July
2008
Oumlcal
an v
Turk
ey [G
C]
no 462219912 May
2005
Oršu
š and
Oth
ers
v Cro
atia
[GC]
no
157660316 March
2010
Pala
di v
Mol
dova
[GC]
no
398060510 March
2009
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 79
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Peer
s v G
reec
e
no 285249519 Ap
ril
2001
Popo
v v R
ussia
no
268530413 July
2006
Pret
ty v
Uni
ted
King
domno 234602
29 April2
002
Qur
aish
i v B
elgi
um
no 61300812 May
2009
Riad
and
Idia
b v B
elgi
um n
os 2
9787
03
and
2981
003
24 Janu
ary2008
SD v
Gre
ece
no
535410711 June
20
09
Saad
i v It
aly
[GC]
no
3720106
28 Fe
bruary2008
Sala
h Sh
eekh
v
the
Net
herla
nds
no
19480411 Janu
ary
2007
Sano
ma
Uitg
ever
s BV
v th
e Ne
ther
land
s no
3822403
14 Sep
tembe
r2010
80 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Soer
ing
v Un
ited
King
domno 1403888
7 July1989
Stap
leto
n v
Irela
nd
(dec)no
5658807
4 May2010
TI v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(dec)no
4384487
7 March2000
Tabe
sh c
Gregravec
e
no 825607
26 Novem
ber2
009
Tham
pibi
llai v
the
Neth
erla
nds
no 6135000
17 Fe
bruary2004
Tyre
r v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 58567225 Ap
ril
1978
Vene
ma
v th
e Ne
ther
land
s no
357319729 Janu
ary
2002
Vere
in g
egen
Ti
erfa
brike
n Sc
hwei
z (V
gT) v
Switz
erla
nd
(no
2) [G
C]
no 327720230 June
20
09
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 81
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Vilv
araj
ah a
nd O
ther
s v
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m
nos 1
3163
87
13
164
87 1
3165
87
13
447
87 1
3448
87
30 Octob
er1991
Y v
Russ
iano 2011307
4 De
cembe
r2008
ECtH
R
Sufi
and
Elm
i v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
nos 8
319
07 a
nd
1144
907
280
620
11
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
risk
of to
rtur
e an
d ill
-tre
atm
ent ndash
rem
oval
to c
ount
ry o
f orig
in ndash
relia
nce
on c
ount
ry
repo
rts ndash
relo
catio
n
Para
266
lsquo266
In
the
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m a
n ap
plica
tion
for a
sylu
m o
r for
subs
idia
ry p
rote
ctio
n w
ill fa
il if
the
decis
ion-
mak
er co
nsid
ers t
hat i
t wou
ld b
e re
ason
able
ndash a
nd n
ot u
ndul
y ha
rsh
ndash to
exp
ect t
he a
pplic
ant t
o re
loca
te
(Janu
zi H
amid
Gaa
far a
nd M
oham
med
v S
ecre
tary
of S
tate
for t
he H
ome
Depa
rtm
ent [
2006
] UKH
L 5 a
nd
AH (S
udan
) v S
ecre
tary
of S
tate
for t
he H
ome
Depa
rtm
ent [
2007
] UKH
L 49)
The
Cou
rt re
calls
that
Art
icle
3 do
es n
ot a
s suc
h p
reclu
de C
ontr
actin
g St
ates
from
pla
cing
relia
nce
on th
e ex
isten
ce o
f an
inte
rnal
fli
ght a
ltern
ativ
e in
thei
r ass
essm
ent o
f an
indi
vidu
alrsquos
claim
that
a re
turn
to h
is co
untr
y of
orig
in w
ould
ex
pose
him
to a
real
risk
of b
eing
subj
ecte
d to
trea
tmen
t pro
scrib
ed b
y th
at p
rovi
sion
(Sal
ah S
heek
h v
the
Net
herla
nds
no 1
948
04sect141
ECH
R20
07-I(extracts)C
haha
l v t
he U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m15 Novem
ber1
996
sect98
Rep
orts
of J
udgm
ents
and
Dec
ision
s 199
6-V
and
Hila
l v t
he U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m n
o 4
5276
99sectsect67
ndash68
ECHR
200
1-II)
How
ever
the
Cou
rt h
as h
eld
that
relia
nce
on a
n in
tern
al fl
ight
alte
rnat
ive
does
not
affe
ct th
e re
spon
sibili
ty o
f the
exp
ellin
g Co
ntra
ctin
g St
ate
to e
nsur
e th
at th
e ap
plica
nt is
not
as a
resu
lt of
its d
ecisi
on
to e
xpel
exp
osed
to tr
eatm
ent c
ontr
ary
to A
rticl
e 3
of th
e Co
nven
tion
(Sal
ah S
heek
h v
the
Net
herla
nds
cited
abo
vesect141
and
TI
v th
e Un
ited
King
dom
(dec
) n
o 4
3844
98
ECH
R 20
00-II
I) T
here
fore
as
a pr
econ
ditio
n of
rely
ing
on a
n in
tern
al fl
ight
alte
rnat
ive
cert
ain
guar
ante
es h
ave
to b
e in
pla
ce t
he p
erso
n to
be
expe
lled
mus
t be
able
to tr
avel
to th
e ar
ea co
ncer
ned
gai
n ad
mitt
ance
and
sett
le th
ere
faili
ng w
hich
an
issu
e un
der A
rticl
e 3
may
aris
e th
e m
ore
so if
in th
e ab
senc
e of
such
gua
rant
ees t
here
is a
pos
sibili
ty o
f hi
s end
ing
up in
a p
art o
f the
coun
try
of o
rigin
whe
re h
e m
ay b
e su
bjec
ted
to il
l-tre
atm
entrsquo
A v
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 10019978841096
23 Sep
tembe
r1998
Abdu
laziz
Cab
ales
and
Ba
lkan
dali
v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m n
os 9
214
80
9473
81
947
481
28
May198
5
Al-A
gha
v Ro
man
ia
no 409
3302
12 Ja
nuary20
10
Bouj
lifa
v Fr
ance
no
122
199
674
194
0
21 Octob
er199
7
Chah
al v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(GC
) no
224
1493
15 Novem
ber1
995
82 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
s 2
82-2
83
lsquo282
If t
he d
ire h
uman
itaria
n co
nditi
ons i
n So
mal
ia w
ere
sole
ly o
r eve
n pr
edom
inan
tly a
ttrib
utab
le
to p
over
ty o
r to
the
Stat
ersquos l
ack
of re
sour
ces t
o de
al w
ith a
nat
ural
ly o
ccur
ring
phen
omen
on s
uch
as
a dr
ough
t th
e te
st in
N v
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
may
wel
l hav
e be
en c
onsid
ered
to b
e th
e ap
prop
riate
on
e H
owev
er i
t is c
lear
that
whi
le d
roug
ht h
as c
ontr
ibut
ed to
the
hum
anita
rian
crisi
s th
at c
risis
is pr
edom
inan
tly d
ue to
the
dire
ct a
nd in
dire
ct a
ctio
ns o
f the
par
ties t
o th
e co
nflic
t Th
e re
port
s ind
icat
e th
at a
ll pa
rtie
s to
the
conf
lict h
ave
empl
oyed
indi
scrim
inat
e m
etho
ds o
f war
fare
in d
ense
ly p
opul
ated
ur
ban
area
s with
no
rega
rd to
the
safe
ty o
f the
civ
ilian
pop
ulat
ion
Thi
s fac
t alo
ne h
as re
sulte
d in
wid
espr
ead
disp
lace
men
t and
the
brea
kdow
n of
soci
al p
oliti
cal a
nd e
cono
mic
infr
astr
uctu
res
M
oreo
ver
the
situa
tion
has b
een
grea
tly e
xace
rbat
ed b
y al
-Sha
baab
rsquos re
fusa
l to
perm
it in
tern
atio
nal a
id
agen
cies
to o
pera
te in
the
area
s und
er it
s con
trol
des
pite
the
fact
that
bet
wee
n a
third
and
a h
alf o
f all
Som
alis
are
livin
g in
a si
tuat
ion
of se
rious
dep
rivat
ion
lsquo283
Co
nseq
uent
ly th
e Co
urt d
oes n
ot c
onsid
er th
e ap
proa
ch a
dopt
ed in
N v
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
to b
e ap
prop
riate
in th
e ci
rcum
stan
ces o
f the
pre
sent
cas
e R
athe
r it
pref
ers t
he a
ppro
ach
adop
ted
in M
SS
v
Belg
ium
and
Gre
ece
whi
ch re
quire
s it t
o ha
ve re
gard
to a
n ap
plic
antrsquos
abi
lity
to c
ater
for h
is m
ost b
asic
ne
eds
such
as f
ood
hyg
iene
and
shel
ter
his v
ulne
rabi
lity
to il
l-tre
atm
ent a
nd th
e pr
ospe
ct o
f his
situa
tion
impr
ovin
g w
ithin
a re
ason
able
tim
e-fr
ame
rsquo
D v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no
302
40962 M
ay
1997
Doug
oz v
Gre
ece
no
409
07986 M
arch
2001
HLR
v Fr
ance
no
245
739429 Ap
ril
1997
Hila
l v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 452
76996 M
arch
2001
Jaba
ri v
Turk
ey
no 400
359811 July
2000
Kley
n an
d O
ther
s v
the
Net
herla
nds
[GC]
nos
393
439
8
3965
198
431
479
8
4666
499
6 M
ay200
3
MSS
v B
elgi
um
and
Gree
ce [
GC]
no 306
9609
21 Ja
nuary20
11
Mam
atku
lov
and
Aska
rov
v Tu
rkey
[GC]
no
s 468
279
9 an
d 46
95199
4 Feb
ruary
2005
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 83
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
McF
eele
y an
d ot
hers
v
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 8317782 Octob
er
1984
Milo
sevi
c v th
e Ne
ther
land
s (de
c)
no 776310119 March
2002
MPP
Gol
ub v
Ukr
aine
(dec)no
677805
18 Octob
er2005
N v
Finl
and
no
388850226 July
2005
NA v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no
259040717 July
2008
Peer
s v G
reec
e
no 285249519 Ap
ril
2001
Pelle
grin
i v It
aly
(dec
) no
773630
1 26 May
2005
Riad
and
Idia
b v B
elgi
um n
os 2
9787
03
and
2981
003
24 Janu
ary2008
SD v
Gre
ece
no
535410711 June
20
09
84 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Saad
i v It
aly
[GC]
no
372
0106
28 Feb
ruary20
08
Said
v th
e N
ethe
rland
s
no 234
502
5 Ju
ly
2005
Sala
h Sh
eekh
v
the
Net
herla
nds
no
194
804
11 Janu
ary
2007
Selv
anay
agam
v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(dec)no
579
8100
12 Decem
ber2
002
T v
Uni
ted
King
dom
[GC]n
o 24
72494
16
Decem
ber1
999
TI v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(dec)no
438
4498
7 March200
0
Uumlne
r v th
e N
ethe
rland
s [GC]n
o 46
41099
18
Octob
er200
6
Vilv
araj
ah a
nd O
ther
s v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no
s 131
638
7
1316
487
131
658
7
1344
787
134
488
7
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 85
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
SHH
v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 603
6710
290
120
13
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
expu
lsion
to A
fgha
nist
an ndash
real
risk
of i
ll tr
eatm
ent
Para
78
lsquo78
The
Cou
rt o
bser
ves a
t the
out
set t
hat
alth
ough
the
appl
ican
t app
lied
for
and
was
refu
sed
asy
lum
in
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
he
has n
ot c
ompl
aine
d be
fore
the
Cour
t tha
t his
rem
oval
to A
fgha
nist
an w
ould
put
hi
m a
t risk
of d
elib
erat
e ill
-tre
atm
ent f
rom
any
par
ty e
ither
on
acco
unt o
f his
past
act
iviti
es w
ith H
izb-i-
Isla
mi o
r for
any
oth
er re
ason
rsquo
Para
83
lsquo83
How
ever
the
par
ties d
isput
ed w
heth
er a
ny su
ppor
t wou
ld b
e av
aila
ble
to th
e ap
plic
ant i
n Af
ghan
istan
The
Gov
ernm
ent m
aint
aine
d th
at th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
cla
im n
ot to
hav
e an
y co
ntac
t with
his
siste
rs in
Afg
hani
stan
had
bee
n im
plic
itly
reje
cted
by
the
Imm
igra
tion
Judg
e an
d th
at h
e ha
d fa
iled
to
subm
it an
y ev
iden
ce to
supp
ort t
hat c
laim
In
any
even
t he
had
not
pro
vide
d an
y re
ason
why
he
coul
d no
t mak
e co
ntac
t with
his
siste
rs u
pon
his r
etur
n to
Afg
hani
stan
By
cont
rast
the
app
lican
t did
not
acc
ept
that
this
part
of h
is cl
aim
had
bee
n re
ject
ed b
y th
e Im
mig
ratio
n Ju
dge
He
cont
inue
d to
cla
im a
s he
had
done
the
dom
estic
pro
ceed
ings
tha
t the
re w
as n
o on
e av
aila
ble
to c
are
for h
im in
Afg
hani
stan
and
that
al
thou
gh h
e ha
d tw
o sis
ters
in th
e co
untr
y th
ey w
ere
both
mar
ried
and
livin
g w
ith th
eir o
wn
fam
ilies
In
any
even
t he
no
long
er h
ad a
ny c
onta
ct w
ith e
ither
of t
hem
rsquo
Para
s 8
5-86
lsquo85
In re
latio
n to
the
appl
ican
trsquos fi
rst g
roun
d th
at h
e w
ould
be
at g
reat
er ri
sk o
f vio
lenc
e in
Afg
hani
stan
du
e to
his
disa
bilit
y th
e Co
urt n
otes
that
the
appl
ican
t has
relie
d sig
nific
antly
upo
n th
e br
ief c
omm
ents
m
ade
by th
e AI
T in
GS
(set
out
at p
arag
raph
s 28-
29 a
bove
) In
that
cas
e th
e AI
T w
hen
expl
aini
ng th
at
ther
e m
ay b
e ca
tego
ries o
f peo
ple
who
may
be
able
to e
stab
lish
an e
nhan
ced
risk
of in
disc
rimin
ate
viol
ence
in A
fgha
nist
an g
ave
as p
ossib
le e
xam
ples
bot
h th
ose
who
wou
ld b
e pe
rcei
ved
to b
e ldquoc
olla
bora
tors
rdquo an
d di
sabl
ed p
erso
ns H
owev
er t
he C
ourt
doe
s not
agr
ee th
at th
e AI
Trsquos c
omm
ents
alo
ne
can
give
subs
tant
ive
supp
ort t
o th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
cla
im I
ndee
d th
e AI
T cl
arifi
ed in
the
sam
e pa
ragr
aph
of
that
det
erm
inat
ion
that
they
wer
e un
able
to g
ive
a lis
t of r
isk c
ateg
orie
s or t
o st
ate
that
any
par
ticul
ar
occu
patio
n or
stat
us w
ould
put
a p
erso
n in
to su
ch a
cat
egor
y in
vie
w o
f the
ldquopa
ucity
of t
he e
vide
ncerdquo
be
fore
them
To
the
cont
rary
the
AIT
mer
ely
reco
rded
that
ther
e ldquom
ay b
e su
ch c
ateg
orie
srdquo d
epen
dent
up
on th
e ev
iden
ce a
vaila
ble
The
AIT
em
phas
ised
that
thei
r com
men
ts sh
ould
not
be
take
n to
indi
cate
th
at th
e di
sabl
ed w
ere
mem
bers
of e
nhan
ced
risk
grou
ps w
ithou
t pro
of to
that
effe
ct
N v
Uni
ted
King
dom
[GC]2
7 May200
8
no 265
6505
30 Octob
er199
1
UKU
T G
S (A
rtic
le 1
5(c)
in
disc
rimin
ate
viol
ence
) Af
ghan
istan
CG
[200
9] U
KAIT
000
44
21 Octob
er200
9
UKU
T H
K an
d O
ther
s (m
inor
s ndash
indi
scrim
inat
e vi
olen
ce
ndash fo
rced
recr
uitm
ent
by Ta
liban
ndash c
onta
ct
with
fam
ily m
embe
rs)
Afgh
anist
an C
G [2
010]
U
KUT
378
(IAC)
23
Novem
ber2
010
UKU
T A
A (u
natt
ende
d ch
ildre
n) A
fgha
nist
an
CG [2
012]
UKU
T 00
016
(IAC)
1 Feb
ruary20
12
UKU
T A
K (A
rtic
le 1
5(c)
) Af
ghan
istan
CG
[201
2]
UKU
T 00
163
(IAC)
18
May201
2
MSS
v B
elgi
um
and
Gree
ce [
GC]
no 306
9609
21 Ja
nuary20
11
86 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo86
The
Cou
rt c
onsid
ers i
t to
be si
gnifi
cant
that
the
appl
ican
t has
faile
d to
add
uce
any
addi
tiona
l su
bsta
ntiv
e ev
iden
ce to
supp
ort h
is cl
aim
that
disa
bled
per
sons
are
per
se a
t gre
ater
risk
of v
iole
nce
as
oppo
sed
to o
ther
diff
icul
ties s
uch
as d
iscrim
inat
ion
and
poor
hum
anita
rian
cond
ition
s th
an th
e ge
nera
l Af
ghan
pop
ulat
ion
The
evi
denc
e fr
om i
nter
alia
UN
HCR
UN
AMA
the
UN
CESC
R th
e AI
HRC
and
the
Uni
ted
Stat
es o
f Am
eric
a St
ate
Depa
rtm
ent (
see
para
grap
hs 4
1-49
abo
ve) m
akes
no
refe
renc
e to
disa
bled
pe
rson
s bei
ng a
t gre
ater
risk
of v
iole
nce
ill-t
reat
men
t or a
ttac
ks in
Afg
hani
stan
rsquo
Para
89
lsquo89
The
Cou
rt fi
nds t
hat t
he p
rinci
ples
of N
v t
he U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m sh
ould
app
ly to
the
circ
umst
ance
s of
the
pres
ent c
ase
for t
he fo
llow
ing
reas
ons
Firs
t th
e Co
urt r
ecal
ls th
at N
con
cern
ed th
e re
mov
al o
f an
HIV
-pos
itive
app
lican
t to
Uga
nda
whe
re h
er li
fesp
an w
as li
kely
to b
e re
duce
d on
acc
ount
of t
he fa
ct
that
the
trea
tmen
t fac
ilitie
s the
re w
ere
infe
rior t
o th
ose
avai
labl
e in
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
In
reac
hing
its
conc
lusio
ns t
he C
ourt
not
ed th
at th
e al
lege
d fu
ture
har
m w
ould
em
anat
e no
t fro
m th
e in
tent
iona
l act
s or
om
issio
n of
pub
lic a
utho
ritie
s or n
on-S
tate
bod
ies b
ut fr
om a
nat
ural
ly o
ccur
ring
illne
ss a
nd th
e la
ck
of su
ffici
ent r
esou
rces
to d
eal w
ith it
in th
e re
ceiv
ing
coun
try
The
Cou
rt a
lso st
ated
that
Art
icle
3 d
id n
ot
plac
e an
obl
igat
ion
on th
e Co
ntra
ctin
g St
ate
to a
llevi
ate
disp
ariti
es in
the
avai
labi
lity
of m
edic
al tr
eatm
ent
betw
een
the
Cont
ract
ing
Stat
e an
d th
e co
untr
y of
orig
in th
roug
h th
e pr
ovisi
on o
f fre
e an
d un
limite
d he
althcaretoallalienswith
outa
righ
ttostaywith
initsjurisd
ictio
n(ib
idsect44)The
Cou
rtackno
wledg
es
that
in
the
pres
ent c
ase
the
appl
ican
trsquos d
isabi
lity
cann
ot b
e co
nsid
ered
to b
e a
ldquonat
ural
lyrdquo
occu
rrin
g ill
ness
and
doe
s not
requ
ire m
edic
al tr
eatm
ent
Nev
erth
eles
s it
is c
onsid
ered
to b
e sig
nific
ant t
hat i
n bo
th
scen
ario
s the
futu
re h
arm
wou
ld e
man
ate
from
a la
ck o
f suf
ficie
nt re
sour
ces t
o pr
ovid
e ei
ther
med
ical
tr
eatm
ent o
r wel
fare
pro
visio
n ra
ther
than
the
inte
ntio
nal a
cts o
r om
issio
ns o
f the
aut
horit
ies o
f the
re
ceiv
ing
Stat
ersquo
RC v
Sw
eden
no
418
27079 M
arch
2010
Jaba
ri v
Turk
ey
no 400
359811 July
2000
Saad
i v It
aly
[GC]
no
372
0106
28 Feb
ruary20
08
Mam
atku
lov
and
Aska
rov
v Tu
rkey
[GC]
no
s 468
279
9 an
d 46
95199
4 Feb
ruary
2005
Hila
l v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 452
76996 M
arch
2001
HLR
v Fr
ance
no
245
739429 Ap
ril
1997
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 87
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
91
lsquo91
Thi
rd a
lthou
gh in
Suf
i and
Elm
i v t
he U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m c
ited
abov
e th
e Co
urt f
ollo
wed
the
appr
oach
se
t out
in M
SS
th
is w
as b
ecau
se o
f the
exc
eptio
nal a
nd e
xtre
me
cond
ition
s pre
vaili
ng in
sout
h an
d ce
ntra
l Som
alia
In
part
icul
ar t
here
was
cle
ar a
nd e
xten
sive
evid
ence
bef
ore
the
Cour
t tha
t the
hu
man
itaria
n cr
isis i
n So
mal
ia w
as p
redo
min
atel
y du
e to
the
dire
ct a
nd in
dire
ct a
ctio
ns o
f all
part
ies t
o th
e co
nflic
t who
had
em
ploy
ed in
disc
rimin
ate
met
hods
of w
arfa
re a
nd h
ad re
fuse
d to
per
mit
inte
rnat
iona
l ai
d ag
enci
es to
ope
rate
( pa
ragr
aph
282
of th
e Su
fi an
d El
mi j
udgm
ent)
On
the
curr
ent e
vide
nce
avai
labl
e
the
Cour
t is n
ot a
ble
to c
oncl
ude
that
the
situa
tion
in A
fgha
nist
an a
lbei
t ver
y se
rious
as a
resu
lt of
on
goin
g co
nflic
t is
com
para
ble
to th
at o
f sou
th a
nd c
entr
al S
omal
ia F
irst
unlik
e So
mal
ia w
hich
has
bee
n w
ithou
t a fu
nctio
ning
cen
tral
Gov
ernm
ent s
ince
199
1 A
fgha
nist
an h
as a
func
tioni
ng c
entr
al G
over
nmen
t an
d fu
nctio
ning
infr
astr
uctu
res r
emai
n in
pla
ce S
econ
d A
fgha
nist
an a
nd in
par
ticul
ar K
abul
to w
here
th
e ap
plic
ant w
ill b
e re
turn
ed r
emai
ns u
nder
Gov
ernm
ent c
ontr
ol u
nlik
e th
e m
ajor
ity o
f sou
th a
nd
cent
ral S
omal
ia w
hich
sin
ce 2
008
has
bee
n un
der t
he c
ontr
ol o
f Isla
mic
insu
rgen
ts T
hird
alth
ough
U
NHC
R ha
s obs
erve
d th
at th
e hu
man
itaria
n sp
ace
in A
fgha
nist
an is
dec
linin
g in
som
e ar
eas a
s a re
sult
of
the
cont
inui
ng in
stab
ility
(see
par
agra
ph 4
3 ab
ove)
the
re re
mai
ns a
sign
ifica
nt p
rese
nce
of in
tern
atio
nal
aid
agen
cies
in A
fgha
nist
an u
nlik
e in
Som
alia
whe
re in
tern
atio
nal a
id a
genc
ies w
ere
refu
sed
perm
issio
n to
ope
rate
in m
ultip
le a
reas
Fou
rth
eve
n th
ough
the
diffi
culti
es a
nd in
adeq
uaci
es in
the
prov
ision
for
pers
ons w
ith d
isabi
litie
s in
Afgh
anist
an c
anno
t be
unde
rsta
ted
it c
anno
t be
said
that
such
pro
blem
s are
as
a re
sult
of th
e de
liber
ate
actio
ns o
r om
issio
ns o
f the
Afg
han
auth
oriti
es ra
ther
than
att
ribut
able
to a
lack
of
reso
urce
s In
deed
the
evi
denc
e su
gges
ts th
at th
e Af
ghan
aut
horit
ies a
re ta
king
alb
eit s
mal
l st
eps t
o im
prov
e pr
ovisi
on fo
r disa
bled
per
sons
by
for e
xam
ple
the
Nat
iona
l Disa
bilit
y Ac
tion
Plan
200
8-20
11
(see
par
agra
ph 4
8 ab
ove)
and
the
prov
ision
of f
inan
cial
supp
ort b
y th
e M
inist
ry o
f Lab
our
Soci
al A
ffairs
M
arty
rs a
nd th
e Di
sabl
ed to
80
000
disa
bled
per
sons
in A
fgha
nist
an (s
ee p
arag
raph
49
abov
e) T
he C
ourt
do
es n
ot a
ccep
t tha
t the
repo
rt o
f the
Aus
tria
n Ce
ntre
for C
ount
ry o
f Orig
in a
nd A
sylu
m R
esea
rch
and
Docu
men
tatio
n (s
ee a
bove
at p
arag
raph
51)
lend
s sup
port
to th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
cla
im b
ecau
se th
at re
port
w
as p
ublis
hed
in 2
007
and
the
late
r Dec
embe
r 201
0 U
NHC
R Gu
idel
ines
mak
e no
sim
ilar r
ecom
men
datio
ns
in re
latio
n to
the
retu
rn o
f disa
bled
per
sons
to A
fgha
nist
anrsquo
N v
Fin
land
no
388
850226 July
2005
Colli
ns a
nd A
kasie
bie
v Sw
eden
(dec
) no
239
44058 M
arch
2007
Sala
h Sh
eekh
v
the
Net
herla
nds
no
194
804
11 Janu
ary
2007
NA
v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 259
040717 July
2008
Sufi
and
Elm
i v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m n
os 8
319
07
and11
44907
28 June
20
11
Al-S
kein
i and
Oth
ers
v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m [G
C]
no 557
21077 Ju
ly
2011
Neu
linge
r and
Shu
ruk
v Sw
itzer
land
[GC]
no
416
15076 Ju
ly
2010
88 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
Aden
Ahm
ed v
Mal
ta
no 553
5212
230
720
13
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
proh
ibiti
on o
f tor
ture
ndash d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t ndash A
rtic
le 5
ECH
R ndash
right
to li
bert
y an
d se
curit
y ndash
law
ful a
rres
t or d
eten
tion
ndash re
view
of l
awfu
lnes
s of d
eten
tion
ndash sp
eedi
ness
of r
evie
w
Para
99
rsquo99
In v
iew
of a
ll th
e ab
ove-
men
tione
d ci
rcum
stan
ces t
aken
as a
who
le w
hich
the
appl
ican
t as
a d
etai
ned
imm
igra
nt e
ndur
ed fo
r a to
tal o
f fou
rtee
n an
d a
half
mon
ths
and
in th
e lig
ht o
f the
app
lican
trsquos sp
ecifi
c sit
uatio
n th
e Co
urt i
s of t
he o
pini
on th
at th
e cu
mul
ativ
e ef
fect
of t
he c
ondi
tions
com
plai
ned
of
dim
inish
ed th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
hum
an d
igni
ty a
nd a
rous
ed in
her
feel
ings
of a
ngui
sh a
nd in
ferio
rity
capa
ble
of h
umili
atin
g an
d de
basin
g he
r and
pos
sibly
bre
akin
g he
r phy
sical
or m
oral
resis
tanc
e In
sum
the
Co
urt c
onsid
ers t
hat t
he c
ondi
tions
of t
he a
pplic
antrsquos
det
entio
n in
Her
mes
Blo
ck a
mou
nted
to d
egra
ding
tr
eatm
ent w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 3
of t
he C
onve
ntio
nrsquo
AA v
Gree
ce
no 121860822 July
2010
AK v
Aust
ria
no 2083292
1 De
cember1
993
Akdi
var a
nd O
ther
s v T
urke
yno 2189393
16 September1
996
Akso
y v Tu
rkey
no
2198793
18 Decem
ber1
996
Alve
r v E
ston
ia
no 6481201
8 No
vember2
005
Amie
and
Oth
ers
v Bul
garia
no 5814908
12 Fe
bruary2013
Amuu
r v Fr
ance
no
197769225 June
19
96
Anan
yev a
nd O
ther
s v R
ussia
nos
425
250
7 an
d 60
800
08
10 Janu
ary2
012
Bele
vitsk
iy v R
ussia
no
72967011 M
arch
2007
Bene
dikt
ov v
Russ
ia
no 1060210 May2007
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 89
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Bozk
ir an
d O
ther
s v
Turk
eyno 2458904
26 Fe
bruary2013
Bulu
t and
Yavu
z v Tu
rkey
(dec)no
7306501
28 M
ay2002
Card
ot v
Fran
ce
no 110698419 March
1991
Chah
al v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(GC
) no
2241493
15 Novem
ber1
995
Cior
ap v
Mol
dova
(no
2)
no 74810620 July
2010
Doug
oz v
Gre
ece
no
40907986 M
arch
2001
E v
Norw
ay
no 117018529Au
gust
1990
Fras
ik v
Pol
and
no
22933025 Janu
ary
2010
GO v
Rus
sia
no 3924903
18 Octob
er2011
90 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Gera
de
Petr
i Te
staf
erra
ta B
onici
Gh
axaq
v M
alta
no
26771075 April
2011
Gubi
n v
Russ
ia
no 82170417 June
20
10
Hand
ysid
e v
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
mno 549372
7 De
cembe
r1976
Haza
r and
Oth
ers
v Tu
rkey
(dec
) no
s 625
660
0
6256
700
625
680
0 etal10 Janu
ary2002
Iord
ache
v R
oman
ia
no 68170214 Octob
er
2008
John
ston
and
Oth
ers
v Ire
land
no 969782
18 Decem
ber1
986
Kade
m v
Mal
ta
no 55263009 Janu
ary
2003
Kara
levi
cius v
Lith
uani
a
no 53254997 April
2005
Keen
an v
Uni
ted
King
domno 2722995
3 Ap
ril2001
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 91
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Khud
oyor
ov v
Rus
sia
no 684702
8 No
vembe
r2005
Kudl
a v
Pola
nd
[GC]no 3021096
26 Octob
er2000
Loul
ed M
asso
ud
v M
altano 2434008
27 Ju
ly2010
MSS
v B
elgi
um
and
Gree
ce [
GC]
no 306960921 Janu
ary
2011
Mam
atku
lov a
nd
Aska
rov v
Turk
ey [G
C]
nos 4
6827
99
and
46951994 Fe
bruary
2005
McF
arla
ne v
Irel
and
[GC]no 3133306
10 Sep
tembe
r2010
Mus
ial v
Pol
and
[GC]
no
245579425 March
1999
Paul
and
Aud
rey
Edw
ards
v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
mno 4647799
14 M
arch2002
Peer
s v G
reec
e
no 285249519 Ap
ril
2001
92 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Popo
v v Fr
ance
no
s 394
720
7 an
d 394740719 Janu
ary
2012
Rahm
ani a
nd D
inev
a v B
ulga
riano 2011608
10 M
ay2012
Raza
v Bu
lgar
ia
no 3146508
11 Fe
bruary2010
Rehb
ock v
Slov
enia
no
2946295
28 Novem
ber2
000
Riad
and
Idia
b v B
elgi
um n
os 2
9787
03
and
2981
003
24 Janu
ary2
008
Rom
an K
aras
ev
v Rus
siano 3025103
25 Novem
ber2
010
SD v
Gree
ce
no 535410711 June
20
09
STS v
the
Neth
erla
nds
no 277057 Ju
ne2011
Saad
i v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
[GC]no 1322903
29 Janu
ary2
008
Sabe
ur B
en A
li v M
alta
no
358929729 June
20
00
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 93
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Step
hens
v M
alta
(no
1)
no 119560721 Ap
ril
2009
Step
hens
v M
alta (n
o 2)
no
337400621 Ap
ril
2009
Tabe
sh c
Gregravec
e
no 825607
26 Novem
ber2
009
Torr
eggi
ani a
nd O
ther
s v
Italy
nos
435
170
9
4688
209
554
000
9
5787
509
615
350
9
3531
510
and
37818108 Janu
ary
2013
Van
Oos
terw
ijck
v Be
lgiu
mno 765476
6 No
vembe
r1980
Vern
illo v
Fran
ce
no 1188985
20 Fe
bruary1991
Vislo
guzo
v v
Ukra
ine
no
323620220 May
2010
Wal
ker v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(dec
) no
349799725 Janu
ary
2000
94 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
X v
Swed
en
no 102308211 May
1983
X v
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 940385 M
ay1982
Z an
d O
ther
s v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m [G
C]
no 293929510 May
2001
Zarb
v M
alta
no
16631044 Ju
ly
2006
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 95
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
[GC]
Tara
khel
v S
witz
erla
nd
no 292
1712
041
120
14
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R - i
nhum
an a
nd d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t ndash sy
stem
atic
def
icie
ncie
s in
rece
ptio
n ar
rang
emen
ts in
th
e ab
senc
e of
indi
vidu
al g
uara
ntee
s con
cern
ing
care
Para
91
rsquo91
Sw
itzer
land
mus
t the
refo
re b
e co
nsid
ered
to b
ear r
espo
nsib
ility
und
er A
rtic
le 3
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n in
th
e pr
esen
t cas
ersquo
Para
99
lsquo99
With
mor
e sp
ecifi
c re
fere
nce
to m
inor
s th
e Co
urt h
as e
stab
lishe
d th
at it
is im
port
ant t
o be
ar in
min
d th
at th
e ch
ildrsquos
extr
eme
vuln
erab
ility
is th
e de
cisiv
e fa
ctor
and
take
s pre
cede
nce
over
con
sider
atio
ns
rela
ting
to th
e st
atus
of i
llega
l im
mig
rant
(see
Mub
ilanz
ila M
ayek
a an
d Ka
niki
Mitu
nga
v B
elgi
um
no 1
3178
03sect55ECH
R20
06-XIan
d Po
pov
v F
ranc
e n
os 3
9472
07
and
3947
407
sect9119 Janu
ary
2012
) Ch
ildre
n ha
ve sp
ecifi
c ne
eds t
hat a
re re
late
d in
par
ticul
ar to
thei
r age
and
lack
of i
ndep
ende
nce
bu
t also
to th
eir a
sylu
m-s
eeke
r sta
tus
The
Cou
rt h
as a
lso o
bser
ved
that
the
Conv
entio
n on
the
Righ
ts
of th
e Ch
ild e
ncou
rage
s Sta
tes t
o ta
ke th
e ap
prop
riate
mea
sure
s to
ensu
re th
at a
chi
ld w
ho is
seek
ing
to o
btai
n re
fuge
e st
atus
enj
oys p
rote
ctio
n an
d hu
man
itaria
n as
sista
nce
whe
ther
the
child
is a
lone
or
acco
mpa
nied
by
his o
r her
par
ents
(see
to th
is ef
fect
Pop
ov c
ited
abov
e sect
91)
rsquo
Para
119
lsquo119
Thi
s req
uire
men
t of ldquo
spec
ial p
rote
ctio
nrdquo o
f asy
lum
seek
ers i
s par
ticul
arly
impo
rtan
t whe
n th
e pe
rson
s con
cern
ed a
re c
hild
ren
in v
iew
of t
heir
spec
ific
need
s and
thei
r ext
rem
e vu
lner
abili
ty T
his
appl
ies e
ven
whe
n a
s in
the
pres
ent c
ase
the
child
ren
seek
ing
asyl
um a
re a
ccom
pani
ed b
y th
eir p
aren
ts
(see
Pop
ovcite
dab
ovesect91)A
ccording
lyth
ereceptioncond
ition
sforchildrenseekingasylum
mustb
ead
apte
d to
thei
r age
to
ensu
re th
at th
ose
cond
ition
s do
not ldquo
crea
te
for
them
a si
tuat
ion
of st
ress
and
an
xiet
y w
ith p
artic
ular
ly tr
aum
atic
con
sequ
ence
srdquo (s
ee m
utat
is m
utan
dis
Pop
ovcite
dab
ovesect102
)O
ther
wise
the
con
ditio
ns in
que
stio
n w
ould
att
ain
the
thre
shol
d of
seve
rity
requ
ired
to c
ome
with
in th
e sc
ope
of th
e pr
ohib
ition
und
er A
rtic
le 3
of t
he C
onve
ntio
nrsquo
Aksu
v T
urke
y [G
C]
nos 4
149
04 a
nd
4102
904
15 March
2012
Beld
joud
i v F
ranc
e
no 120
838626 March
1992
Bosp
horu
s Hav
a Yo
llari
Turiz
m v
e Ti
care
t An
onim
Sirk
eti v
Irel
and
[GC]n
o 45
03698
30
June
200
5
Budi
na v
Rus
sia (
dec)
no
456
030516 June
20
09
Chap
man
v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m [G
C]
no 272
3895
18 Ja
nuary20
01
Guer
ra a
nd
Oth
ers v
Ital
y
no 116
199
673
593
2
19 Feb
ruary19
98
HLR
v Fr
ance
no
245
739429 Ap
ril
1997
96 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
s 1
20-1
22
lsquo120
In
the
pres
ent c
ase
as t
he C
ourt
has
alre
ady
obse
rved
(see
par
agra
ph 1
15 a
bove
) in
vie
w o
f the
cu
rren
t situ
atio
n as
rega
rds t
he re
cept
ion
syst
em in
Ital
y an
d al
thou
gh th
at si
tuat
ion
is no
t com
para
ble
to th
e sit
uatio
n in
Gre
ece
whi
ch th
e Co
urt e
xam
ined
in M
SS
th
e po
ssib
ility
that
a si
gnifi
cant
num
ber
of a
sylu
m se
eker
s rem
oved
to th
at c
ount
ry m
ay b
e le
ft w
ithou
t acc
omm
odat
ion
or a
ccom
mod
ated
in
over
crow
ded
faci
litie
s with
out a
ny p
rivac
y or
eve
n in
insa
lubr
ious
or v
iole
nt c
ondi
tions
is n
ot u
nfou
nded
It
is th
eref
ore
incu
mbe
nt o
n th
e Sw
iss a
utho
ritie
s to
obta
in a
ssur
ance
s fro
m th
eir I
talia
n co
unte
rpar
ts th
at
on th
eir a
rriv
al in
Ital
y th
e ap
plic
ants
will
be
rece
ived
in fa
cilit
ies a
nd in
con
ditio
ns a
dapt
ed to
the
age
of
the
child
ren
and
that
the
fam
ily w
ill b
e ke
pt to
geth
er
lsquo121
The
Cou
rt n
otes
that
acc
ordi
ng to
the
Italia
n Go
vern
men
t fa
mili
es w
ith c
hild
ren
are
rega
rded
as
a p
artic
ular
ly v
ulne
rabl
e ca
tego
ry a
nd a
re n
orm
ally
take
n ch
arge
of w
ithin
the
SPRA
R ne
twor
k T
his
syst
em a
ppar
ently
gua
rant
ees t
hem
acc
omm
odat
ion
food
hea
lth c
are
Ital
ian
clas
ses
refe
rral
to so
cial
se
rvic
es l
egal
adv
ice
voc
atio
nal t
rain
ing
app
rent
ices
hips
and
hel
p in
find
ing
thei
r ow
n ac
com
mod
atio
n
How
ever
in
thei
r writ
ten
and
oral
obs
erva
tions
the
Italia
n Go
vern
men
t did
not
pro
vide
any
furt
her d
etai
ls on
the
spec
ific
cond
ition
s in
whi
ch th
e au
thor
ities
wou
ld ta
ke c
harg
e of
the
appl
ican
ts
Itistrue
thatatthe
hea
ringof12 Februa
ry201
4theSw
issGovernm
entstatedthatth
eFM
Ohad
be
en in
form
ed b
y th
e Ita
lian
auth
oriti
es th
at i
f the
app
lican
ts w
ere
retu
rned
to It
aly
they
wou
ld b
e ac
com
mod
ated
in B
olog
na in
one
of t
he fa
cilit
ies f
unde
d by
the
ERF
Nev
erth
eles
s in
the
abse
nce
of
deta
iled
and
relia
ble
info
rmat
ion
conc
erni
ng th
e sp
ecifi
c fa
cilit
y th
e ph
ysic
al re
cept
ion
cond
ition
s and
the
pres
erva
tion
of th
e fa
mily
uni
t th
e Co
urt c
onsid
ers t
hat t
he S
wiss
aut
horit
ies d
o no
t pos
sess
suffi
cien
t as
sura
nces
that
if r
etur
ned
to It
aly
the
appl
ican
ts w
ould
be
take
n ch
arge
of i
n a
man
ner a
dapt
ed to
the
age
of th
e ch
ildre
n
lsquo122
It f
ollo
ws t
hat
wer
e th
e ap
plic
ants
to b
e re
turn
ed to
Ital
y w
ithou
t the
Sw
iss a
utho
ritie
s hav
ing
first
ob
tain
ed in
divi
dual
gua
rant
ees f
rom
the
Italia
n au
thor
ities
that
the
appl
ican
ts w
ould
be
take
n ch
arge
of i
n a
man
ner a
dapt
ed to
the
age
of th
e ch
ildre
n an
d th
at th
e fa
mily
wou
ld b
e ke
pt to
geth
er t
here
wou
ld b
e a
viol
atio
n of
Art
icle
3 o
f the
Con
vent
ion
rsquo
Halil Yuumlksel A
kıncı
v Tu
rkey
no 39
12504
11
Decem
ber2
012
Hirs
i Jam
aa a
nd
Oth
ers v
Ital
y [G
C]
no 277
6509
23 Feb
ruary20
12
Jaba
ri v
Turk
ey
no 400
359811 July
2000
Kudl
a v
Pola
nd
[GC]n
o 30
21096
26
Octob
er200
0
M a
nd O
ther
s v
Bulg
aria
no
414
160826 July
2011
MSS
v B
elgi
um
and
Gree
ce [
GC]
no 306
9609
21 Ja
nuary20
11
Mic
haud
v F
ranc
e
no 123
2311
6 De
cembe
r201
2
Moh
amm
ed H
usse
in
and
Oth
ers v
the
Net
herla
nds a
nd It
aly
(dec)no
277
2510
2 Ap
ril201
3
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 97
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Mub
ilanz
ila M
ayek
a an
d Ka
niki
Mitu
nga
v Be
lgiu
m no
1317
803
12 Octob
er2006
Muumls
lim v
Turk
ey
no 535669926 Ap
ril
2005
Niza
mov
and
Oth
ers
v Ru
ssia
nos
226
361
3
2403
413
243
341
3
24328137 M
ay2014
Popo
v v Fr
ance
no
s 394
720
7 an
d 394740719 Janu
ary
2012
Saad
i v It
aly
[GC]
no
3720106
28 Fe
bruary2008
Sala
h Sh
eekh
v
the
Net
herla
nds
no
19480411 Janu
ary
2007
Soer
ing
v Un
ited
King
domno 1403888
7 July1989
Vilv
araj
ah a
nd O
ther
s v
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m
nos 1
3163
87
13
164
87 1
3165
87
13
447
87 1
3448
87
30 Octob
er1991
98 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
Moh
amad
c G
regravece
no 705
8611(in
French
with
Eng
lish
sum
mar
y)
111
2 2
014
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
inhu
man
and
deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent ndash
det
entio
n - u
nacc
ompa
nied
min
or ndash
effe
ctiv
e ac
cess
to
pro
cedu
res
Uno
ffici
al tr
ansla
tion
Para
84
lsquo84
How
ever
des
pite
the
fact
that
the
auth
oriti
es w
ere
unde
r an
oblig
atio
n un
der t
he re
leva
nt
dom
estic
legi
slatio
n to
pla
ce th
e ap
plic
ant i
n su
ch a
stru
ctur
e n
o st
eps w
ere
take
n in
that
dire
ctio
n T
he
Governmen
tdoe
snotprovide
anyexplana
tionasto
whyth
eau
thoritiespersis
tedasfrom3 Ja
nuary
2011
whe
n th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
med
ical
exa
min
atio
n to
ok p
lace
in
deta
inin
g hi
m a
t the
bor
der p
ost i
nste
ad
of se
ekin
g al
tern
ativ
e pl
acem
ent s
olut
ions
The
Gov
ernm
ent d
oes n
ot p
rovi
de a
ny e
vide
nce
of a
ny
atte
mpt
to m
ake
any
form
of c
onta
ct to
this
effe
ct w
ith th
e co
mpe
tent
bod
ies d
urin
g th
e en
tire
perio
d from
3 Ja
nuaryto9 M
arch201
1whe
ntheau
thoritiesatthe
borde
rposto
fSou
fliin
form
edth
epu
blic
pros
ecut
or o
f the
app
lican
trsquos m
ajor
ity a
nd th
e en
d of
the
proc
eedi
ngs u
nder
Art
icle
19
of D
ecre
e N
o
220
2007
rsquo
Para
86
lsquo86
In v
iew
of t
he fa
ct th
at th
e ap
plic
ant h
ad n
ot b
een
plac
ed in
a re
cept
ion
stru
ctur
e su
itabl
e fo
r min
ors
in
acc
orda
nce
with
the
appl
icab
le le
gisla
tion
as w
ell a
s the
impo
ssib
ility
of d
epor
ting
him
dur
ing
his
min
ority
and
the
lack
of s
teps
take
n by
the
auth
oriti
es to
do
so a
fter h
e ha
d re
ache
d th
e ag
e of
maj
ority
theCo
urtcon
clud
esth
atth
eap
plican
trsquosdeten
tionwasnotlsquolaw
fulrsquowith
inth
emea
ning
ofA
rticle5sect1f)
of th
e Co
nven
tion
and
that
ther
e w
as a
vio
latio
n of
that
pro
visio
nrsquo
FH v
Gre
ece
no
784561131 July
2014
Barja
maj
v G
reec
e
no 36657112 M
ay
2013
Rahi
mi v
Gre
ece
no
8687085 April
2011
RU
v G
reec
e
no 2237087 Ju
ne2011
CD a
nd O
ther
s v G
reec
e
nos 3
3441
10
334
681
0 an
d 33
476
10
19 Decem
ber2
013
BM v
Gre
ece
no
5360811
19 Decem
ber2
013
McG
linch
ey a
nd O
ther
s v
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 503909929 Ap
ril
2003
AF v
Gre
ece
no
537091113 June
20
13
Hous
ein
v Gr
eece
no
7182511
24 Octob
er2013
Mah
mun
di a
nd O
ther
s v
Gree
ceno 1490210
31 Ju
ly2012
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 99
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Riad
and
Idia
b v B
elgi
um n
os 2
9787
03
and
2981
003
24 Janu
ary2008
Peer
s v G
reec
e
no 285249519 Ap
ril
2001
Kudl
a v
Pola
nd
[GC]no 3021096
26 Octob
er2000
Tabe
sh c
Gregravec
e
no 825607
26 Novem
ber2
009
SD v
Gre
ece
no
535410711 June
20
09
Chah
al v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(GC
) no
2241493
15 Novem
ber1
995
100 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
Aara
bi c
Gregrave
ce
no 397
6609(in
French
with
Eng
lish
sum
mar
y)
020
4 2
015
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
dete
ntio
n ndash
acco
mm
odat
ion
cent
re ndash
effe
ctiv
e ac
cess
to p
roce
dure
s ndash u
nacc
ompa
nied
m
inor
ndash b
est i
nter
ests
of t
he c
hild
Uno
ffici
al tr
ansla
tion
Para
s 4
4-45
lsquo44
The
Cou
rt a
lso n
otes
two
othe
r ele
men
ts w
hich
supp
ort t
he v
iew
that
the
com
pete
nt a
utho
ritie
s w
ere
not l
acki
ng in
goo
d fa
ith in
dea
ling
with
the
ques
tion
of th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
age
in th
e pr
esen
t cas
e
Firs
tly o
n th
e ab
ove-
men
tione
d ar
rest
repo
rt i
n ad
ditio
n to
the
appl
ican
trsquos n
ame
and
date
of b
irth
ap
pear
the
nam
es o
f thr
ee o
ther
per
sons
who
had
dec
lare
d to
the
auth
oriti
es th
at th
ey w
ere
min
ors a
nd
had
been
regi
ster
ed a
s suc
h T
he C
ourt
thus
sees
no
part
icul
ar re
ason
why
the
appl
ican
t wou
ld n
ot h
ave
been
regi
ster
ed a
s a m
inor
if h
e ha
d hi
mse
lf de
clar
ed th
at fa
ct to
the
com
pete
nt a
utho
ritie
s It
shou
ld
be re
calle
d in
this
conn
ectio
n th
at a
t the
tim
e of
his
arre
st th
e ap
plic
ant w
as a
lmos
t eig
htee
n ye
ars o
ld
Cons
eque
ntly
sinc
e he
had
not
him
self
raise
d hi
s min
ority
to th
e do
mes
tic a
utho
ritie
s it
wou
ld n
ot h
ave
been
obv
ious
for t
hem
to c
onsid
er th
is po
ssib
ility
on
thei
r ow
n in
itiat
ive
Fur
ther
mor
e th
e Co
urt n
otes
thaton28
July200
9theOfficeofthe
UnitedNationsHighCo
mmiss
ione
rforRefug
eesinformed
the
domestic
autho
ritieso
fthe
app
lican
trsquosre
alageThe
AliensPoliceDirectoratewasdiligentand
on30
July
2009
it re
ferr
ed th
e m
atte
r to
the
com
pete
nt p
ublic
pro
secu
tor i
n or
der t
o tr
ansf
er th
e ap
plic
ant t
o ac
com
mod
atio
n fo
r min
ors
lsquo45
The
Cou
rt c
onsid
ers t
hat t
he c
ondu
ct o
f the
com
pete
nt a
utho
ritie
s des
crib
ed a
bove
supp
orts
the
idea
th
at th
ey a
cted
in g
ood
faith
in th
is re
gard
Con
sequ
ently
the
Cou
rt c
anno
t im
pute
to th
em th
e fa
ct th
at
the
appl
ican
t was
not
regi
ster
ed a
s a m
inor
at t
he ti
me
of h
is ar
rest
For
the
sam
e re
ason
the
Cou
rt w
ill
exam
ine
the
appl
ican
trsquos c
ompl
aint
s abo
ut h
is co
nditi
ons o
f det
entio
n as
com
plai
nts r
aise
d by
an
adul
t pe
rson
atthe
timeofth
eeven
tsn
amelyup
to30 July200
9th
eda
tefrom
whichth
ena
tiona
lautho
rities
trea
ted
him
as a
min
orrsquo
Kala
chni
kov
v Ru
ssia
no
470
959915 July
2002
Efre
mid
ze v
Gre
ece
no
332
250821 June
20
11
Tabe
sh c
Gregrave
ce
no 825
607
26
Novem
ber2
009
Kudl
a v
Pola
nd
[GC]n
o 30
21096
26
Octob
er200
0
Peer
s v G
reec
e
no 285
249519 Ap
ril
2001
Riad
and
Idia
b v
Belg
ium
no
s 297
870
3 an
d 29
81003
24 Janu
ary
2008
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 101
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
AA v
Gre
ece
no
121
860822 July
2010
Anan
yev
and
Oth
ers
v Ru
ssia
nos
425
250
7 an
d 60
800
08
10 Ja
nuary20
12
AF c
Gregrave
ce
no 537
091113 June
20
13
Sias
ios e
t al
v Gr
eece
no
303
03074 Ju
ne
2009
Vafia
dis v
Gre
ece
no
249
81077 Ju
ly
2009
Shuv
aev
v Gr
eece
no
824
907
29
Octob
er200
9
Hors
hill
v Gr
eece
no
704
27111Aug
ust
2013
Lica
v G
reec
e
no 742
791017 July
2012
BM v
Gre
ece
no
536
0811
19 Decem
ber2
013
Bygy
lash
vili
v Gr
eece
no
581
6410
25 Sep
tembe
r201
2
102 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
RU v
Gre
ece
no
223
708
7 Ju
ne
2011
Rahi
mi v
Gre
ece
no
868
708
5 April
2011
Asla
nis v
Gre
ece
no
364
0110
17 Octob
er201
3
De lo
s San
tos a
nd
de la
Cru
z v G
reec
e
nos 2
134
12 a
nd
2161
1226 June
201
4
Ahm
ade
v Gr
eece
no
505
2009
25 Sep
tembe
r201
2
Barja
maj
v G
reec
e
no 366
57112 M
ay
2013
Khur
oshv
ili v
Gre
ece
no
581
6510
12 Decem
ber2
013
Vučković and
Others
v Se
rbia
[GC]
no
171
531125Match
2014
SD v
Gre
ece
no
535
410711 June
20
09
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 103
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
Abdi
Mah
amud
v M
alta
no 567
9613
030
520
16
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
proh
ibiti
on o
f tor
ture
- de
tent
ion
- deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent ndash
Art
icle
5 E
CHR
ndash re
view
of
law
fuln
ess o
f det
entio
n ndash
spee
dine
ss o
f rev
iew
ndash m
edic
al re
port
s
Para
89
rsquo89
In v
iew
of t
he a
pplic
antrsquos
vul
nera
bilit
y as
a re
sult
of h
er h
ealth
all
the
abov
e-m
entio
ned
circ
umst
ance
s n
amel
y th
e fa
ct th
at th
e ap
plic
ant h
ad n
o ac
cess
to o
utdo
or e
xerc
ise fo
r any
thin
g be
twee
n ei
ght a
nd tw
elve
wee
ks t
he p
oor e
nviro
nmen
t for
out
door
exe
rcise
in th
e re
mai
ning
per
iod
the
lack
of
spec
ific
mea
sure
s to
coun
ter a
ct th
e co
ld t
he la
ck o
f fem
ale
staf
f th
e lit
tle p
rivac
y of
fere
d in
the
cent
re
and
the
fact
thes
e co
nditi
ons p
ersis
ted
for o
ver s
ixte
en m
onth
s le
ad th
e Co
urt t
o co
nclu
de th
at th
e cu
mul
ativ
e ef
fect
of t
he c
ondi
tions
com
plai
ned
of d
imin
ished
the
appl
ican
trsquos h
uman
dig
nity
and
aro
used
in
her
feel
ings
of a
ngui
sh a
nd in
ferio
rity
capa
ble
of h
umili
atin
g an
d de
basin
g he
r and
pos
sibly
bre
akin
g he
r phy
sical
or m
oral
resis
tanc
e In
sum
the
Cou
rt c
onsid
ers t
hat t
he c
ondi
tions
of t
he a
pplic
antrsquos
de
tent
ion
in H
erm
es B
lock
am
ount
ed to
deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of A
rtic
le 3
of t
he
Conv
entio
nrsquo
Vala
šinas
v L
ithua
nia
no
445
5898
24 Octob
er200
1
Torr
eggi
ani a
nd O
ther
s v
Italy
nos
435
170
9
4688
209
554
000
9
5787
509
615
350
9
3531
510
and
37
81810
8 Ja
nuary
2013
Doug
oz v
Gre
ece
no
409
07986 M
arch
2001
Riad
and
Idia
b v
Belg
ium
no
s 297
870
3 an
d 29
81003
24 Janu
ary
2008
MSS
v B
elgi
um
and
Gree
ce [
GC]
no 306
9609
21 Ja
nuary20
11
Loul
ed M
asso
ud
v M
altan
o 24
34008
27
July201
0
Saad
i v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
[GC]n
o 13
22903
29
Janu
ary20
08
104 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Yara
shon
en v
Tur
key
no
727
101124 June
20
14
Tabe
sh c
Gregrave
ce
no 825
607
26
Novem
ber2
009
Step
hens
v M
alta
(n
o 2)
no 33
74006
21
April20
09
Siza
rev
v U
krai
ne
no 171
1604
17 Ja
nuary20
13
Aden
Ahm
ed v
Mal
ta
no 553
521223 July
2013
SD v
Gre
ece
no
535
410711 June
20
09
Suso
Mus
a v
Mal
ta
no 423
371223 July
2013
Abdi
Ahm
ed a
nd o
ther
s v
Mal
tan
o 43
98513
16
Sep
tembe
r201
4
Mik
alau
skas
v M
alta
no
445
810
23 July
2013
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 105
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Nes
hkov
and
O
ther
s v B
ulga
ria
nos 3
6925
10
21
487
12 7
2893
12
73
196
12 7
7718
12
and
9717
13
27
Janu
ary20
15
Nur
mag
omed
ov
v Ru
ssia
no 30
13802
7 June
200
7
Selc
uk a
nd A
kser
v
Turk
ey n
os 2
3184
94
and23
18594
24 Ap
ril
1998
Pret
ty v
Uni
ted
King
domn
o 23
460
29 April20
02
106 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R (G
C)
JK a
nd O
ther
s v S
wed
en
no 591
6612
230
820
16
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
risk
of to
rtur
e or
to in
hum
an o
r deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent ndash
risk
on
retu
rn to
Iraq
Para
72
lsquo72
The
Gov
ernm
ent f
urth
er co
nten
ded
that
ther
e w
as n
o re
ason
to b
elie
ve th
at th
e fir
st a
pplic
ant a
nd
his f
amily
wou
ld fi
nd th
emse
lves
in a
par
ticul
arly
vul
nera
ble
situa
tion
upon
retu
rnin
g to
Bag
hdad
The
Go
vern
men
t agr
eed
with
the
Cham
ber t
hat t
here
was
insu
fficie
nt e
vide
nce
to co
nclu
de th
at o
win
g to
thei
r pe
rson
al ci
rcum
stan
ces
the
appl
icant
s wou
ld fa
ce a
real
risk
of b
eing
subj
ecte
d to
trea
tmen
t con
trar
y to
Ar
ticle
3 o
f the
Con
vent
ion
if re
turn
ed to
Iraq
rsquo
Para
79
lsquo79
The
gen
eral
prin
ciple
s con
cern
ing
Artic
le 3
in e
xpul
sion
case
s hav
e be
en se
t out
in S
aadi
v It
aly
([G
C] n
o 3
7201
06sectsect12
4-13
3ECH
R20
08)a
ndm
ostrecen
tlyin
FG v
Sw
eden
([GC
] no
436
111
1
ECHR
201
6) T
he re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
s of t
he la
tter j
udgm
ent r
ead
as fo
llow
s
ldquo111
Th
e Co
urt r
eite
rate
s tha
t Con
trac
ting
Stat
es h
ave
the
right
as a
mat
ter o
f wel
l-est
ablis
hed
inte
rnat
iona
l law
and
subj
ect t
o th
eir t
reat
y ob
ligat
ions
inc
ludi
ng th
e Co
nven
tion
to co
ntro
l the
ent
ry
resid
ence
and
exp
ulsio
n of
alie
ns (s
ee f
or e
xam
ple
Hirs
i Jam
aa a
nd O
ther
s v I
taly
[GC]
no
277
650
9
sect11
3ECH
R20
12Uuml
ner v
the
Net
herla
nds [
GC]
no 4
6410
99sect54ECH
R20
06-XIIA
bdul
aziz
Cab
ales
and
Ba
lkand
ali v
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
28 May198
5sect67SeriesA
no94and
Bou
jlifa
v F
ranc
e21 Octob
er
1997
sect42R
epor
ts o
f Jud
gmen
ts a
nd D
ecisi
ons 1
997-
VI)
How
ever
the
exp
ulsio
n of
an
alie
n by
a C
ontr
actin
g St
ate
may
giv
e ris
e to
an
issue
und
er A
rticl
e 3
and
hen
ce e
ngag
e th
e re
spon
sibili
ty o
f tha
t Sta
te u
nder
th
e Co
nven
tion
whe
re su
bsta
ntia
l gro
unds
hav
e be
en sh
own
for b
elie
ving
that
the
pers
on in
que
stio
n if
de
port
ed w
ould
face
a re
al ri
sk o
f bei
ng su
bjec
ted
to tr
eatm
ent c
ontr
ary
to A
rticl
e 3
in th
e de
stin
atio
n co
untr
y In
thes
e cir
cum
stan
ces
Artic
le 3
impl
ies a
n ob
ligat
ion
not t
o de
port
the
pers
on in
que
stio
n to
that
co
untr
y (s
ee a
mon
g ot
her a
utho
ritie
s Sa
adi v
Ita
ly [G
C] n
o 3
7201
06sectsect12
4-12
5ECH
R20
08)
112
The
ass
essm
ent o
f whe
ther
ther
e ar
e su
bsta
ntia
l gro
unds
for b
elie
ving
that
the
appl
icant
face
s suc
h a
real
risk
inev
itabl
y re
quire
s the
Cou
rt to
exa
min
e th
e co
nditi
ons i
n th
e de
stin
atio
n co
untr
y in
the
light
of
the
stan
dard
s of A
rticl
e 3
of th
e Co
nven
tion
(see
Mam
atku
lov
and
Aska
rov
v Tu
rkey
[GC]
nos
468
279
9 an
d 46
951
99sect67ECH
R20
05-I)The
sestan
dardse
ntailthatthe
ill-treatmen
tthe
app
licanta
llegesh
ewillface
if re
turn
ed m
ust a
ttain
a m
inim
um le
vel o
f sev
erity
if it
is to
fall
with
in th
e sc
ope
of A
rticl
e 3
The
ass
essm
ent
of th
is le
vel i
s rel
ativ
e d
epen
ding
on
all t
he ci
rcum
stan
ces o
f the
case
(see
Hila
l v t
he U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 4
5276
99sect60ECH
R20
01-II)rsquo
Baha
ddar
v th
e Ne
ther
land
s no
1451996764965
19 Fe
bruary1998
Chah
al v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(GC
) no
2241493
15 Novem
ber1
995
Collin
s and
Aka
siebi
e v
Swed
en (d
ec)
no 23944058 M
arch
2007
DNW
v Sw
eden
no
2994610
6 De
cembe
r2012
FG v
Swed
en [G
C]
no 436111123 March
2016
FH v
Swed
en
no 326210620 Janu
ary
2009
HLR
v Fr
ance
no
245739429 Ap
ril
1997
Hila
l v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 45276996 M
arch
2001
Hirs
i Jam
aa a
nd
Oth
ers v
Ital
y [G
C]
no 2776509
23 Fe
bruary2012
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 107
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
83
lsquo83
In
the
Cour
trsquos c
ase-
law
the
prin
cipl
e of
ex
nunc
eva
luat
ion
of th
e ci
rcum
stan
ces h
as b
een
esta
blish
ed
in a
num
ber o
f cas
es T
his p
rinci
ple
has m
ost r
ecen
tly b
een
set o
ut in
FG
v S
wed
en (c
ited
abov
e)
ldquo115
If
the
appl
ican
t has
not
alre
ady
been
dep
orte
d th
e m
ater
ial p
oint
in ti
me
for t
he a
sses
smen
t m
ust b
e th
at o
f the
Cou
rtrsquos
cons
ider
atio
n of
the
case
(see
Cha
halcitedab
ovesect86)A
fullan
dex
nu
nc e
valu
atio
n is
requ
ired
whe
re it
is n
eces
sary
to ta
ke in
to a
ccou
nt in
form
atio
n th
at h
as c
ome
to
light
afte
r the
fina
l dec
ision
by
the
dom
estic
aut
horit
ies w
as ta
ken
(see
for
exa
mpl
e M
aslo
v v
Aus
tria
[G
C] n
o 1
638
03sectsect87
-95ECH
R20
08and
Suf
i and
Elm
i v t
he U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
mcite
dab
ovesect215
)Th
is sit
uatio
n ty
pica
lly a
rises
whe
n a
s in
the
pres
ent c
ase
dep
orta
tion
is de
laye
d as
a re
sult
of th
e in
dica
tion
by th
e Co
urt o
f an
inte
rim m
easu
re u
nder
Rul
e 39
of t
he R
ules
of C
ourt
Sin
ce th
e na
ture
of
the
Cont
ract
ing
Stat
esrsquo r
espo
nsib
ility
und
er A
rtic
le 3
in c
ases
of t
his k
ind
lies i
n th
e ac
t of e
xpos
ing
an
indi
vidu
al to
the
risk
of il
l tre
atm
ent
the
exist
ence
of t
he ri
sk m
ust b
e as
sess
ed p
rimar
ily w
ith re
fere
nce
to th
ose
fact
s whi
ch w
ere
know
n or
oug
ht to
hav
e be
en k
now
n by
the
Cont
ract
ing
Stat
e at
the
time
of th
e ex
pulsi
on T
he a
sses
smen
t mus
t foc
us o
n th
e fo
rese
eabl
e co
nseq
uenc
es o
f the
app
lican
trsquos re
mov
al to
the
coun
try
of d
estin
atio
n in
the
light
of t
he g
ener
al si
tuat
ion
ther
e an
d of
his
or h
er p
erso
nal c
ircum
stan
ces
(see
for
exa
mpl
e S
alah
She
ekh
v th
e N
ethe
rland
s n
o 1
948
04sect136
11 Janu
ary20
07and
Vilv
araj
ah
and
Oth
ers v
the
Uni
ted
King
domcite
dab
ovesectsect10
7an
d10
8)rdquorsquo
Para
93
lsquo93
Ow
ing
to th
e sp
ecia
l situ
atio
n in
whi
ch a
sylu
m-s
eeke
rs o
ften
find
them
selv
es i
t is f
requ
ently
ne
cess
ary
to g
ive
them
the
bene
fit o
f the
dou
bt w
hen
asse
ssin
g th
e cr
edib
ility
of t
heir
stat
emen
ts
and
the
docu
men
ts su
bmitt
ed in
supp
ort t
here
of Y
et w
hen
info
rmat
ion
is pr
esen
ted
whi
ch g
ives
st
rong
reas
ons t
o qu
estio
n th
e ve
raci
ty o
f an
asyl
um-s
eeke
rrsquos su
bmiss
ions
the
indi
vidu
al m
ust p
rovi
de
a sa
tisfa
ctor
y ex
plan
atio
n fo
r the
alle
ged
inac
cura
cies
in th
ose
subm
issio
ns (s
ee F
G v
Sw
eden
cite
d ab
ovesect113
Col
lins a
nd A
kazie
bie
v S
wed
en (d
ec)
no
239
440
58 M
arch200
7and
SH
H v
the
U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m n
o 6
0367
10sect7129 Janu
ary20
13)Even
ifth
eap
plican
trsquosaccou
ntofsom
ede
tails
may
app
ear s
omew
hat i
mpl
ausib
le t
he C
ourt
has
con
sider
ed th
at th
is do
es n
ot n
eces
saril
y de
trac
t fro
m
the
over
all g
ener
al c
redi
bilit
y of
the
appl
ican
trsquos c
laim
(see
Sai
dcite
dab
ovesect53and
mut
atis
mut
andi
s
N v
Fin
land
no
388
850
2sectsect15
4-15
526 July200
5)rsquo
Labi
ta c
Italy
[GC]
no
26772956 April
2000
MA
v Cy
prus
no
418721023 July
2013
MSS
v B
elgi
um
and
Gree
ce [
GC]
no 306960921 Janu
ary
2011
Muumls
lim v
Turk
ey
no 535669926 Ap
ril
2005
N v
Finl
and
no
388850226 July
2005
NA v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no
259040717 July
2008
Niza
mov
and
Oth
ers
v Ru
ssia
nos
226
361
3
2403
413
243
341
3
24328137 M
ay2014
RC v
Swed
en
no 41827079 M
arch
2010
RJ v
Fran
ce
no 1046611
19 Sep
tembe
r2013
108 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
SH v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no
199560615 June
20
10
SHH
v Un
ited
King
dom
no
603671029 Janu
ary
2013
Saad
i v It
aly
[GC]
no
3720106
28 Fe
bruary2008
Said
v th
e Ne
ther
land
s no
2345025 Ju
ly2005
Sala
h Sh
eekh
v
the
Net
herla
nds
no
19480411 Janu
ary
2007
Sufi
and
Elm
i v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m n
os 8
319
07
and114490728 June
20
11
TI v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(dec)no
4384498
7 March2000
Venk
adaj
alas
arm
a v
the
Neth
erla
nds
no 5851000
17 Fe
bruary2004
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 109
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
[GC
VM a
nd O
ther
s v
Belg
ium
no 601
2511
171
120
16
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R - i
nhum
an o
r deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent ndash
subj
ecte
d to
livi
ng c
ondi
tions
that
resu
lted
in
daug
hter
rsquos de
ath
Para
41
lsquo41
Acc
ordi
ngly
the
case
shou
ld b
e st
ruck
out
of t
he li
strsquo
Diss
entin
g op
inio
n of
Judg
e Ra
nzon
i jo
ined
by
judg
es L
oacutepez
Gue
rra
Sic
ilian
os a
nd L
emm
ens
Par
a
5 lsquoF
irstly
the
Gra
nd C
ham
ber s
houl
d ha
ve ta
ken
adva
ntag
e of
the
oppo
rtun
ity p
rovi
ded
by th
e pr
esen
t ca
se to
def
ine
or a
djus
t the
con
cept
of ldquo
vuln
erab
ility
rdquo In
its c
ase-
law
the
Cour
t has
had
rega
rd to
th
e vu
lner
abili
ty o
f the
app
lican
ts b
oth
in a
sses
sing
whe
ther
the
thre
shol
d of
seve
rity
just
ifyin
g th
e ap
plic
atio
n of
Art
icle
3 h
ad b
een
atta
ined
a g
reat
er d
egre
e of
vul
nera
bilit
y ju
stify
ing
a lo
wer
thre
shol
d of
tole
ranc
e a
nd in
det
erm
inin
g th
e sc
ope
of th
e po
sitiv
e ob
ligat
ions
on
the
Stat
e e
xtre
me
vuln
erab
ility
re
quiri
ng a
gre
ater
dut
y of
pro
tect
ion
(see
MS
S v
Bel
gium
and
Gre
ece
[GC]
no
306
960
9sect251
ECH
R20
11 a
nd Ta
rakh
el v
Sw
itzer
land
[GC]
no
292
171
2sect119
ECH
R20
14(e
xtracts))rsquo
Ali v
Switz
erla
nd
no 6919978531060
5 Au
gust
199
8
Dial
lo v
Cze
ch R
epub
lic
no 204930723 June
20
11
Ibra
him
Hay
d v
the
Neth
erla
nds (
dec)
no
3088010
29 Novem
ber2
011
K an
d T
v Fi
nlan
d [G
C]
no 257029412 July
2001
Kadz
oev v
Bul
garia
(dec)no
5643707
1 Octob
er2013
MH
and
Oth
ers v
Cyp
rus
(dec)no
4174410
14 Janu
ary2014
MIs
v C
ypru
s (de
c)
no 4180510
10 Fe
bruary2015
Ram
zy v
the
Neth
erla
nds (
strik
ing
out)no 2542405
20 Ju
ly2010
Shar
ifi a
nd O
ther
s v
Italy
and
Gre
ece
no
1664309
21 Octob
er2014
110 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
Elm
i and
Abu
bake
r v
Mal
ta
nos 2
5794
13
and
2815
113
221
120
16
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
Proh
ibiti
on o
f tor
ture
- de
grad
ing
trea
tmen
t ndash d
eten
tion
ndash as
ylum
seek
ing
child
ren
ndash be
st
inte
rest
s of t
he ch
ild -
Artic
le 5
ECH
R ndash
revi
ew o
f law
fuln
ess o
f det
entio
n ndash
arbi
trar
y de
tent
ion
due
to se
vere
de
lays
Para
s 1
11-1
15
lsquo111
The
se co
ncer
ns a
ssum
e a
new
dim
ensio
n in
vie
w o
f the
fact
that
the
appl
icant
s wer
e m
inor
s at t
he
time
of th
eir d
eten
tion
(as c
onfir
med
by
the
dom
estic
pro
cedu
res)
Whi
le it
is tr
ue th
at th
e ap
plica
nts w
ere
not y
oung
child
ren
they
still
fell
with
in th
e in
tern
atio
nal d
efin
ition
of m
inor
s in
resp
ect o
f whi
ch d
eten
tion
shou
ld b
e a
last
reso
rt a
nd w
hich
shou
ld b
e lim
ited
to th
e sh
orte
st ti
me
poss
ible
As m
entio
ned
abov
e
unde
r the
Cou
rtrsquos
case
-law
rece
ptio
n co
nditi
ons f
or ch
ildre
n se
ekin
g as
ylum
mus
t be
adap
ted
to th
eir a
ge
How
ever
no
mea
sure
s wer
e ta
ken
to e
nsur
e th
at th
e ap
plica
nts a
s min
ors r
ecei
ved
prop
er co
unse
lling
an
d ed
ucat
iona
l ass
istan
ce fr
om q
ualif
ied
pers
onne
l spe
cially
man
date
d fo
r tha
t pur
pose
(see
Mub
ilanz
ila
May
eka
and
Kani
ki M
itung
a citedab
ovesect50)N
orwereanyen
tertainm
entfacilitie
sprovide
dforp
ersons
of th
eir a
ge F
urth
erm
ore
the
Cour
t can
not i
gnor
e th
e ap
plica
ntsrsquo
subm
issio
ns to
the
effe
ct th
at th
ere
was
a te
nse
and
viol
ent a
tmos
pher
e a
s also
doc
umen
ted
by re
port
s (se
e pa
ragr
aph
86 a
bove
) Th
e la
ck o
f an
y su
ppor
t mec
hani
sm fo
r the
app
lican
ts a
s min
ors
as w
ell a
s the
lack
of i
nfor
mat
ion
conc
erni
ng th
eir
situa
tion
mus
t hav
e ex
acer
bate
d th
eir f
ears
lsquo112
The
Cou
rt re
itera
tes t
hat a
Sta
tersquos
oblig
atio
ns co
ncer
ning
the
prot
ectio
n of
mig
rant
min
ors m
ay b
e di
ffere
nt d
epen
ding
on
whe
ther
they
are
acc
ompa
nied
or n
ot (s
ee R
ahim
i v G
reec
e n
o 8
687
08sect63
5 Ap
ril201
1)H
oweverthe
Cou
rthasfo
undviolationsinbotham
bitsItfou
ndaviolatio
nofArticle3in
Popo
v(cite
dab
ovesect103
)con
cerningaccompa
nied
minorsinview
ofthe
childrenrsquosy
oungage(fivemon
ths
and
thre
e ye
ars)
the
leng
th o
f the
ir de
tent
ion
(ove
r a p
erio
d of
fifte
en d
ays)
and
the
cond
ition
s of t
heir
conf
inem
ent i
n a
dete
ntio
n ce
ntre
It a
lso fo
und
a vi
olat
ion
of A
rticl
e 3
in th
e M
uskh
adzh
iyev
a an
d O
ther
s (cite
dab
ovesect63)co
ncerningfo
uryou
ngch
ildrenwho
werehe
ldaccom
panied
bytheirm
othe
rforo
ne
mon
th p
endi
ng th
eir r
emov
al ndash
the
Cour
t hav
ing
take
n in
to co
nsid
erat
ion
thei
r you
ng a
ge (s
even
mon
ths
to se
ven
year
s) t
he d
urat
ion
of th
e de
tent
ion
and
thei
r hea
lth st
atus
(see
also
Kan
agar
atna
m v
Bel
gium
no
152
970
9sect6913 De
cembe
r201
1)The
Cou
rthasalso
previou
slyfo
und
in R
ahim
i (cit
ed a
bove
sectsect85-86
)inrespecto
fanun
accompa
nied
minor(a
gedfifteen
)insuchfacilitiesthatthe
cond
ition
sof
his d
eten
tion
wer
e so
poo
r tha
t the
y un
derm
ined
the
very
ess
ence
of h
uman
dig
nity
and
that
they
coul
d be
rega
rded
in th
emse
lves
with
out t
akin
g in
to co
nsid
erat
ion
the
leng
th o
f the
det
entio
n (a
few
day
s) a
s de
grad
ing
trea
tmen
t in
brea
ch o
f Art
icle
3 of
the
Conv
entio
n (s
ee a
lso M
ubila
nzila
May
eka
and
Kani
ki
Mitu
ngacitedab
ovesectsect50
-59inco
nnectio
nwith
afive-year-o
lduna
ccom
panied
minor)
Aden
Ahm
ed v
Mal
ta
no 553
521223 July
2013
Mah
amed
Jam
a v
Mal
tan
o 10
29013
26
Novem
ber2
015
Mox
amed
Ism
aaci
il an
d Ab
dira
hman
War
sam
e v
Mal
ta n
os 5
2160
13
and
5216
513
12
Janu
ary20
16
Mub
ilanz
ila
May
eka
and
Kani
ki
Mitu
nga
v Be
lgiu
m
no 1
3178
03
12
Octob
er200
6
Siza
rev
v U
krai
ne
no 171
1604
17 Ja
nuary20
13
Selc
uk a
nd A
kser
v
Turk
ey n
os 2
3184
94
and23
18594
24 Ap
ril
1998
Pret
ty v
Uni
ted
King
domn
o 23
4602
29 April20
02
Doug
oz v
Gre
ece
no
409
07986 M
arch
2001
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 111
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo113
The
Cou
rt o
bser
ves t
hat i
n th
e ap
plic
ants
rsquo cas
e th
e af
orem
entio
ned
cond
ition
s per
siste
d fo
r a p
erio
d of
aro
und
eigh
t mon
ths
dur
ing
whi
ch n
o sp
ecifi
c ar
rang
emen
ts w
ere
mad
e fo
r the
app
lican
ts a
s mig
rant
s aw
aitin
g th
e ou
tcom
e of
thei
r age
-ass
essm
ent p
roce
dure
(who
se st
atus
as m
inor
s was
late
r con
firm
ed)
The
Cour
t rei
tera
tes t
hat t
he a
pplic
ants
as a
sylu
m-s
eeke
rs w
ere
part
icul
arly
vul
nera
ble
beca
use
of
ever
ythi
ng th
ey h
ad b
een
thro
ugh
durin
g th
eir m
igra
tion
and
the
trau
mat
ic e
xper
ienc
es th
ey w
ere
likel
y to
hav
e en
dure
d pr
evio
usly
(see
MS
Scitedab
ovesect232
)Moreo
verinth
epresen
tcasetheap
plican
ts
who
wer
e six
teen
and
seve
ntee
n ye
ars o
f age
resp
ectiv
ely
wer
e ev
en m
ore
vuln
erab
le th
an a
ny o
ther
ad
ult a
sylu
m se
eker
det
aine
d at
the
time
beca
use
of th
eir a
ge (s
ee a
con
trar
io M
aham
ed Ja
ma
cite
d ab
ovesect100
)
lsquo114
It f
ollo
ws
in th
e pr
esen
t cas
e th
at si
nce
the
appl
ican
ts w
ere
min
ors w
ho w
ere
deta
ined
for a
per
iod
of a
roun
d ei
ght m
onth
s th
e cu
mul
ativ
e ef
fect
of t
he c
ondi
tions
com
plai
ned
of a
mou
nted
to d
egra
ding
tr
eatm
ent w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n
lsquo115
The
re h
as a
ccor
ding
ly b
een
a vi
olat
ion
of A
rtic
le 3
of t
he C
onve
ntio
nrsquo
SD v
Gre
ece
no
535410711 June
20
09
AA v
Gre
ece
no
121860822 July
2010
Riad
and
Idia
b v B
elgi
um n
os 2
9787
03
and
2981
003
24 Janu
ary2008
Alve
r v E
ston
ia
no 6481201
8 No
vembe
r2005
Kara
levi
cius v
Lith
uani
a
no 53254997 April
2005
Yara
shon
en v
Turk
ey n
o
727101124 June
2014
Anan
yev a
nd O
ther
s v
Russ
ia n
os 4
2525
07
and
6080
008
10 Janu
ary2012
MSS
v B
elgi
um
and
Gree
ce [
GC]
no 306960921 Janu
ary
2011
Mub
ilanz
ila M
ayek
a an
d Ka
niki
Mitu
nga
v Be
lgiu
m no
1317
803
12 Octob
er2006
112 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Popo
v v Fr
ance
no
s 394
720
7 an
d 394740719 Janu
ary
2012
Tara
khel
v Sw
itzer
land
[G
C] no
2921
712
4 No
vembe
r2014
Suso
Mus
a v
Mal
ta
no 423371223 July
2013
Rahi
mi v
Gre
ece
no
8687085 April
2011
Kana
gara
tnam
v
Belg
ium
no 1529709
13 Decem
ber2
011
Step
hens
v M
alta
(no
1)
no 119560721 Ap
ril
2009
Loul
ed M
asso
ud
v M
altano 2434008
27 Ju
ly2010
Saad
i v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
[GC]no 1322903
29 Janu
ary2008
Blok
hin
v Ru
ssia
[GC]
no
471520623 March
2016
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 113
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
[GC]
Papo
shvi
li v
Belg
ium
no 417
3810
131
220
16
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R - r
isk o
f tor
ture
or t
o in
hum
an o
r deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent -
Art
icle
8 ndash
righ
t to
resp
ect f
or
fam
ily li
fe ndash
rem
oval
to G
eorg
ia ndash
hea
lth o
f app
lican
t
Para
178
lsquo178
In
the
case
of N
v t
he U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m w
hich
con
cern
ed th
e re
mov
al o
f a U
gand
an n
atio
nal w
ho
was
suffe
ring
from
Aid
s to
her c
ount
ry o
f orig
in t
he C
ourt
in
exam
inin
g w
heth
er th
e ci
rcum
stan
ces o
f th
e ca
se a
ttai
ned
the
leve
l of s
ever
ity re
quire
d by
Art
icle
3 o
f the
Con
vent
ion
obs
erve
d th
at n
eith
er th
e de
cisio
n to
rem
ove
an a
lien
who
was
suffe
ring
from
a se
rious
illn
ess t
o a
coun
try
whe
re th
e fa
cilit
ies f
or
the
trea
tmen
t of t
hat i
llnes
s wer
e in
ferio
r to
thos
e av
aila
ble
in th
e Co
ntra
ctin
g St
ate
nor
the
fact
that
the
indi
vidu
alrsquos
circ
umst
ance
s in
clud
ing
his o
r her
life
exp
ecta
ncy
wou
ld b
e sig
nific
antly
redu
ced
con
stitu
ted
in th
emse
lves
ldquoexc
eptio
nalrdquo
circ
umst
ance
s suf
ficie
nt to
giv
e ris
e to
a b
reac
h of
Art
icle
3 (s
ee N
v t
he
Uni
ted
King
dom
) In
the
Cour
trsquos v
iew
it w
as im
port
ant t
o av
oid
upse
ttin
g th
e fa
ir ba
lanc
e in
here
nt in
th
e w
hole
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n be
twee
n th
e de
man
ds o
f the
gen
eral
inte
rest
of t
he c
omm
unity
and
the
requ
irem
ents
of t
he p
rote
ctio
n of
the
indi
vidu
alrsquos
fund
amen
tal r
ight
s A
find
ing
to th
e co
ntra
ry w
ould
pl
ace
too
grea
t a b
urde
n on
Sta
tes b
y ob
ligin
g th
em to
alle
viat
e th
e di
spar
ities
bet
wee
n th
eir h
ealth
-ca
re sy
stem
and
the
leve
l of t
reat
men
t ava
ilabl
e in
the
third
cou
ntry
con
cern
ed th
roug
h th
e pr
ovisi
on o
f fr
ee a
nd u
nlim
ited
heal
th c
are
to a
ll al
iens
with
out a
righ
t to
stay
with
in th
eir j
urisd
ictio
n R
athe
r re
gard
sh
ould
be
had
to th
e fa
ct th
at th
e ap
plic
antrsquos
con
ditio
n w
as n
ot c
ritic
al a
nd w
as st
able
as a
resu
lt of
the
antir
etro
vira
l tre
atm
ent s
he h
ad re
ceiv
ed in
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
tha
t she
was
fit t
o tr
avel
and
that
her
co
nditi
on w
as n
ot e
xpec
ted
to d
eter
iora
te a
s lon
g as
she
cont
inue
d to
take
the
trea
tmen
t she
nee
ded
Th
e Co
urt a
lso d
eem
ed it
nec
essa
ry to
take
acc
ount
of t
he fa
ct th
at th
e ra
pidi
ty o
f the
det
erio
ratio
n w
hich
th
e ap
plic
ant w
ould
suffe
r in
the
rece
ivin
g co
untr
y an
d th
e ex
tent
to w
hich
she
wou
ld b
e ab
le to
obt
ain
acce
ss to
med
ical
trea
tmen
t su
ppor
t and
car
e th
ere
incl
udin
g he
lp fr
om re
lativ
es n
eces
saril
y in
volv
ed
a ce
rtai
n de
gree
of s
pecu
latio
n p
artic
ular
ly in
vie
w o
f the
con
stan
tly e
volv
ing
situa
tion
with
rega
rd to
the
treatm
ento
fAidsw
orldwide(ib
idsect50
)Th
eCo
urtc
onclud
edth
atth
eim
plem
entatio
nofth
ede
cisio
nto
rem
ove
the
appl
ican
t wou
ld n
ot g
ive
rise
to a
vio
latio
n of
Art
icle
3 o
f the
Con
vent
ion
Nev
erth
eles
s it
sp
ecifi
ed th
at i
n ad
ditio
n to
situ
atio
ns o
f the
kin
d ad
dres
sed
in D
v t
he U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m in
whi
ch d
eath
w
as im
min
ent
ther
e m
ight
be
othe
r ver
y ex
cept
iona
l cas
es w
here
the
hum
anita
rian
cons
ider
atio
ns
wei
ghin
g ag
ains
t rem
oval
wer
e eq
ually
com
pelli
ng (s
ee D
v t
he U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m)
An e
xam
inat
ion
of th
e ca
se-la
w su
bseq
uent
to N
v t
he U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m h
as n
ot re
veal
ed a
ny su
ch e
xam
ples
rsquo
AS v
Sw
itzer
land
no
393
501330 June
20
15
Aire
y v
Irela
nd
no 628
973
9 Octob
er
1979
Asw
at v
Uni
ted
King
domn
o 17
29912
16
April20
13
Bouy
id v
Bel
gium
[GC]n
o 23
38009
28
Sep
tembe
r201
5
D v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no
302
40962 M
ay
1997
EO v
Ital
y (d
ec)
no 347
241010 May
2012
El-M
asri
v th
e fo
rmer
Yu
gosla
v Re
publ
ic
of M
aced
onia
[GC]n
o 39
63009
13
Decem
ber2
012
FG v
Sw
eden
[GC]
no
436
111123 March
2016
114 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Para
s 1
83-1
93
lsquo183
The
Cou
rt c
onsid
ers t
hat t
he ldquoo
ther
ver
y ex
cept
iona
l cas
esrdquo
with
in th
e m
eani
ng o
f the
judg
men
t in
N v
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
whi
ch m
ay ra
ise a
n iss
ue u
nder
Art
icle
3 sh
ould
be
unde
rsto
od to
refe
r to
situa
tions
invo
lvin
g th
e re
mov
al o
f a se
rious
ly il
l per
son
in w
hich
subs
tant
ial g
roun
ds h
ave
been
show
n fo
r bel
ievi
ng th
at h
e or
she
alth
ough
not
at i
mm
inen
t risk
of d
ying
wou
ld fa
ce a
real
risk
on
acco
unt o
f th
e ab
senc
e of
app
ropr
iate
trea
tmen
t in
the
rece
ivin
g co
untr
y or
the
lack
of a
cces
s to
such
trea
tmen
t of
bei
ng e
xpos
ed to
a se
rious
rap
id a
nd ir
reve
rsib
le d
eclin
e in
his
or h
er st
ate
of h
ealth
resu
lting
in
inte
nse
suffe
ring
or to
a si
gnifi
cant
redu
ctio
n in
life
exp
ecta
ncy
The
Cou
rt p
oint
s out
that
thes
e sit
uatio
ns
corr
espo
nd to
a h
igh
thre
shol
d fo
r the
app
licat
ion
of A
rtic
le 3
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n in
cas
es c
once
rnin
g th
e re
mov
al o
f alie
ns su
fferin
g fr
om se
rious
illn
ess
lsquo184
As
to w
heth
er th
e ab
ove
cond
ition
s are
satis
fied
in a
giv
en si
tuat
ion
the
Cour
t obs
erve
s tha
t in
case
s inv
olvi
ng th
e ex
pulsi
on o
f alie
ns t
he C
ourt
doe
s not
itse
lf ex
amin
e th
e ap
plic
atio
ns fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pr
otec
tion
or v
erify
how
Sta
tes c
ontr
ol th
e en
try
resid
ence
and
exp
ulsio
n of
alie
ns B
y vi
rtue
of A
rtic
le 1
of
the
Conv
entio
n th
e pr
imar
y re
spon
sibili
ty fo
r im
plem
entin
g an
d en
forc
ing
the
guar
ante
ed ri
ghts
and
fr
eedo
ms i
s lai
d on
the
natio
nal a
utho
ritie
s w
ho a
re th
us re
quire
d to
exa
min
e th
e ap
plic
ants
rsquo fea
rs a
nd
to a
sses
s the
risk
s the
y w
ould
face
if re
mov
ed to
the
rece
ivin
g co
untr
y fr
om th
e st
andp
oint
of A
rtic
le 3
Th
e m
achi
nery
of c
ompl
aint
to th
e Co
urt i
s sub
sidia
ry to
nat
iona
l sys
tem
s saf
egua
rdin
g hu
man
righ
ts T
his
subsidiarycha
racterisarticulated
inArticle13an
dArtic
le35sect1ofth
eCo
nven
tion(see
MS
S v
Bel
gium
an
d Gr
eece
cite
dab
ovesectsect28
6-87
and
FG
v S
wed
en)
lsquo185
Ac
cord
ingl
y in
cas
es o
f thi
s kin
d th
e au
thor
ities
rsquo obl
igat
ion
unde
r Art
icle
3 to
pro
tect
the
inte
grity
of
the
pers
ons c
once
rned
is fu
lfille
d pr
imar
ily th
roug
h ap
prop
riate
pro
cedu
res a
llow
ing
such
exa
min
atio
n to
be
carr
ied
out (
see
mut
atis
mut
andi
s E
l-Mas
ri v
the
form
er Y
ugos
lav
Repu
blic
of M
aced
onia
[GC]
no
396
300
9sect182
ECH
R20
12 T
arak
hel
and
FG v
Sw
eden
)
lsquo186
In
the
cont
ext o
f the
se p
roce
dure
s it
is fo
r the
app
lican
ts to
add
uce
evid
ence
cap
able
of
dem
onst
ratin
g th
at th
ere
are
subs
tant
ial g
roun
ds fo
r bel
ievi
ng th
at i
f the
mea
sure
com
plai
ned
of w
ere
to b
e im
plem
ente
d th
ey w
ould
be
expo
sed
to a
real
risk
of b
eing
subj
ecte
d to
trea
tmen
t con
trar
y to
Art
icle
3 (s
ee S
aadi
and
FG
v S
wed
en)
In th
is co
nnec
tion
it sh
ould
be
obse
rved
that
a c
erta
in
degr
ee o
f spe
cula
tion
is in
here
nt in
the
prev
entiv
e pu
rpos
e of
Art
icle
3 a
nd th
at it
is n
ot a
mat
ter o
f re
quiri
ng th
e pe
rson
s con
cern
ed to
pro
vide
cle
ar p
roof
of t
heir
clai
m th
at th
ey w
ould
be
expo
sed
to
pros
crib
ed tr
eatm
ent (
see
in p
artic
ular
Tra
belsi
v B
elgi
um n
o 1
401
0sect130
ECH
R20
14(e
xtracts))
Hirs
i Jam
aa a
nd
Oth
ers v
Ital
y [G
C]
no 277
6509
23 Feb
ruary20
12
Kara
goz v
Fra
nce
(dec)no
475
3199
15 Novem
ber2
011
Karn
er v
Aus
tria
no
400
169824 July
2003
Khac
hatr
yan
v Be
lgiu
m
(dec)no
725
9710
7 Ap
ril201
5
Koch
ieva
and
Oth
ers
v Sw
eden
(dec
) no
752
031230 Ap
ril
2013
MSS
v B
elgi
um
and
Gree
ce [
GC]
no 306
9609
21 Ja
nuary20
11
Mal
hous
v C
zech
Re
publ
ic (d
ec) [
GC]
no 330
719612 July
2001
Mam
atku
lov
and
Aska
rov
v Tu
rkey
[GC]
no
s 468
279
9 an
d 46
95199
4 Feb
ruary
2005
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 115
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo187
W
here
such
evi
denc
e is
addu
ced
it is
for t
he a
utho
ritie
s of t
he re
turn
ing
Stat
e in
the
cont
ext o
f do
mes
tic p
roce
dure
s to
disp
el a
ny d
oubt
s rai
sed
by it
(see
Saa
dicite
dab
ovesect129
and
FG
v S
wed
en
citedab
ovesect120
)Th
eriskallegedmustb
esubjectedtoclosesc
rutin
y(see
Saa
di cite
dab
ovesect128
Su
fi an
d El
mi v
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
nos
831
907
and
114
490
7sect214
28 June
201
1H
irsi J
amaa
and
O
ther
s a
nd Ta
rakh
el)
in th
e co
urse
of w
hich
the
auth
oriti
es in
the
retu
rnin
g St
ate
mus
t con
sider
the
fore
seea
ble
cons
eque
nces
of r
emov
al fo
r the
indi
vidu
al c
once
rned
in th
e re
ceiv
ing
Stat
e in
the
light
of
the
gene
ral s
ituat
ion
ther
e an
d th
e in
divi
dual
rsquos pe
rson
al c
ircum
stan
ces (
see
Vilv
araj
ah a
nd O
ther
s
El-M
asri
and
Tara
khel
) Th
e as
sess
men
t of t
he ri
sk a
s def
ined
abo
ve (s
ee p
arag
raph
s 183
-84)
mus
t th
eref
ore
take
into
con
sider
atio
n ge
nera
l sou
rces
such
as r
epor
ts o
f the
Wor
ld H
ealth
Org
anisa
tion
or o
f re
puta
ble
non-
gove
rnm
enta
l org
anisa
tions
and
the
med
ical
cer
tific
ates
con
cern
ing
the
pers
on in
que
stio
n
lsquo188
As
the
Cour
t has
obs
erve
d ab
ove
wha
t is i
n iss
ue h
ere
is th
e ne
gativ
e ob
ligat
ion
not t
o ex
pose
pe
rson
s to
a ris
k of
ill-t
reat
men
t pro
scrib
ed b
y Ar
ticle
3 I
t fol
low
s tha
t the
impa
ct o
f rem
oval
on
the
pers
on c
once
rned
mus
t be
asse
ssed
by
com
parin
g hi
s or h
er st
ate
of h
ealth
prio
r to
rem
oval
and
how
it
wou
ld e
volv
e af
ter t
rans
fer t
o th
e re
ceiv
ing
Stat
e
lsquo189
As
rega
rds t
he fa
ctor
s to
be ta
ken
into
con
sider
atio
n th
e au
thor
ities
in th
e re
turn
ing
Stat
e m
ust
verif
y on
a c
ase-
by-c
ase
basis
whe
ther
the
care
gen
eral
ly a
vaila
ble
in th
e re
ceiv
ing
Stat
e is
suffi
cien
t an
d ap
prop
riate
in p
ract
ice
for t
he tr
eatm
ent o
f the
app
lican
trsquos il
lnes
s so
as to
pre
vent
him
or h
er b
eing
ex
pose
d to
trea
tmen
t con
trar
y to
Art
icle
3 T
he b
ench
mar
k is
not t
he le
vel o
f car
e ex
istin
g in
the
retu
rnin
g St
ate
it is
not
a q
uest
ion
of a
scer
tain
ing
whe
ther
the
care
in th
e re
ceiv
ing
Stat
e w
ould
be
equi
vale
nt o
r in
ferio
r to
that
pro
vide
d by
the
heal
th-c
are
syst
em in
the
retu
rnin
g St
ate
Nor
is it
pos
sible
to d
eriv
e fr
om
Artic
le 3
a ri
ght t
o re
ceiv
e sp
ecifi
c tr
eatm
ent i
n th
e re
ceiv
ing
Stat
e w
hich
is n
ot a
vaila
ble
to th
e re
st o
f the
po
pula
tion
lsquo190
Th
e au
thor
ities
mus
t also
con
sider
the
exte
nt to
whi
ch th
e in
divi
dual
in q
uest
ion
will
act
ually
hav
e ac
cess
to th
is ca
re a
nd th
ese
faci
litie
s in
the
rece
ivin
g St
ate
The
Cou
rt o
bser
ves i
n th
at re
gard
that
it h
as
prev
ious
ly q
uest
ione
d th
e ac
cess
ibili
ty o
f car
e (s
ee A
swat
and
Tata
r) a
nd re
ferr
ed to
the
need
to c
onsid
er
the
cost
of m
edic
atio
n an
d tr
eatm
ent
the
exist
ence
of a
soci
al a
nd fa
mily
net
wor
k a
nd th
e di
stan
ce
to b
e tr
avel
led
in o
rder
to h
ave
acce
ss to
the
requ
ired
care
(see
Kar
agoz
v F
ranc
e (d
ec)
no
475
319
9
15 Novem
ber2
001N
v t
he U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m a
nd th
e re
fere
nces
cite
d th
erei
n a
nd E
O v
Ita
ly (d
ec))
Mas
lov
v Au
stria
[GC]
no
163
803
23 June
20
08
Mur
ray
v th
e N
ethe
rland
s [GC
] no
105
111026 Ap
ril
2016
N v
Uni
ted
King
dom
[GC]n
o 26
56505
27
May200
8
Pret
ty v
Uni
ted
King
domn
o 23
4602
29 April20
02
SHH
v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 603
6710
29 Ja
nuary20
13
Saad
i v It
aly
[GC]
no
372
0106
28 Feb
ruary20
08
Sufi
and
Elm
i v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m n
os 8
319
07
and11
44907
28 June
20
11
116 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo191
W
here
afte
r the
rele
vant
info
rmat
ion
has b
een
exam
ined
ser
ious
dou
bts p
ersis
t reg
ardi
ng th
e im
pact
of r
emov
al o
n th
e pe
rson
s con
cern
ed ndash
on
acco
unt o
f the
gen
eral
situ
atio
n in
the
rece
ivin
g co
untr
y an
dor
thei
r ind
ivid
ual s
ituat
ion
ndash th
e re
turn
ing
Stat
e m
ust o
btai
n in
divi
dual
and
suffi
cien
t ass
uran
ces
from
the
rece
ivin
g St
ate
as a
pre
cond
ition
for r
emov
al t
hat a
ppro
pria
te tr
eatm
ent w
ill b
e av
aila
ble
and
acce
ssib
le to
the
pers
ons c
once
rned
so th
at th
ey d
o no
t fin
d th
emse
lves
in a
situ
atio
n co
ntra
ry to
Art
icle
3
(on
the
subj
ect o
f ind
ivid
ual a
ssur
ance
s se
e Ta
rakh
el)
lsquo192
Th
e Co
urt e
mph
asise
s tha
t in
cas
es c
once
rnin
g th
e re
mov
al o
f ser
ious
ly il
l per
sons
the
eve
nt w
hich
tr
igge
rs th
e in
hum
an a
nd d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t an
d w
hich
eng
ages
the
resp
onsib
ility
of t
he re
turn
ing
Stat
e un
der A
rtic
le 3
is n
ot th
e la
ck o
f med
ical
infr
astr
uctu
re in
the
rece
ivin
g St
ate
Lik
ewise
the
issu
e is
not o
ne o
f any
obl
igat
ion
for t
he re
turn
ing
Stat
e to
alle
viat
e th
e di
spar
ities
bet
wee
n its
hea
lth-c
are
syst
em
and
the
leve
l of t
reat
men
t exi
stin
g in
the
rece
ivin
g St
ate
thro
ugh
the
prov
ision
of f
ree
and
unlim
ited
heal
th c
are
to a
ll al
iens
with
out a
righ
t to
stay
with
in it
s jur
isdic
tion
The
resp
onsib
ility
that
is e
ngag
ed
unde
r the
Con
vent
ion
in c
ases
of t
his t
ype
is th
at o
f the
retu
rnin
g St
ate
on
acco
unt o
f an
act ndash
in th
is in
stan
ce e
xpul
sion
ndash w
hich
wou
ld re
sult
in a
n in
divi
dual
bei
ng e
xpos
ed to
a ri
sk o
f tre
atm
ent p
rohi
bite
d by
Art
icle
3
lsquo193
La
stly
the
fact
that
the
third
cou
ntry
con
cern
ed is
a C
ontr
actin
g Pa
rty
to th
e Co
nven
tion
is no
t de
cisiv
e W
hile
the
Cour
t agr
ees w
ith th
e Go
vern
men
t tha
t the
pos
sibili
ty fo
r the
app
lican
t to
initi
ate
proc
eedi
ngs o
n hi
s ret
urn
to G
eorg
ia w
as i
n pr
inci
ple
the
mos
t nat
ural
rem
edy
unde
r the
Con
vent
ion
syst
em i
t obs
erve
s tha
t the
aut
horit
ies i
n th
e re
turn
ing
Stat
e ar
e no
t exe
mpt
ed o
n th
at a
ccou
nt fr
om th
eir
duty
of p
reve
ntio
n un
der A
rtic
le 3
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n (s
ee a
mon
g ot
her a
utho
ritie
s M
SS
v B
elgi
um a
nd
Gree
ce a
nd Ta
rakh
el)rsquo
Tara
khel
v S
witz
erla
nd
[GC]
no
2921
712
4 Novem
ber2
014
Tata
r v S
witz
erla
nd
no 656
921214 Ap
ril
2015
Trab
elsi
v Be
lgiu
m
no 140
10
4 Septem
ber2
014
VS a
nd O
ther
s v F
ranc
e (dec)no
352
2611
25 Novem
ber2
014
Vilv
araj
ah a
nd O
ther
s v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no
s 131
638
7
1316
487
131
658
7
1344
787
134
488
7
30 Octob
er199
1
Yoh-
Ekal
e M
wan
je
v Be
lgiu
m
no 104
8610
20 Decem
ber2
011
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 117
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
SF a
nd O
ther
s v B
ulga
ria
no 813
816
071
220
17
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R ndash
inhu
man
or d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t ndash d
eten
tion
ndash ch
ild sp
ecifi
c co
nsid
erat
ions
ndash e
ffect
ive
rem
edy
Para
s 8
4-93
lsquo84
In th
is ca
se t
he p
erio
d un
der c
onsid
erat
ion
was
acc
ordi
ng to
the
Gove
rnm
entrsquos
cal
cula
tions
ab
out t
hirt
y-tw
o ho
urs
Acc
ordi
ng to
the
appl
ican
tsrsquo c
alcu
latio
ns i
t was
abo
ut fo
rty-
one
hour
s (se
e pa
ragr
aphs
11
and
29 a
bove
) W
hich
ever
of t
he tw
o ve
rsio
ns is
take
n as
cor
rect
it i
s cle
ar th
at th
is am
ount
of t
ime
was
con
sider
ably
shor
ter t
han
the
perio
ds a
t iss
ue in
the
case
s men
tione
d in
the
prev
ious
pa
ragr
aphs
How
ever
the
con
ditio
ns in
the
bord
er p
olic
ersquos d
eten
tion
faci
lity
in V
idin
as d
escr
ibed
by
the
appl
ican
ts (w
ithou
t bei
ng c
ontr
adic
ted
by th
e Go
vern
men
t) a
nd a
s rev
eale
d by
the
vide
o su
bmitt
ed b
y th
em w
ere
cons
ider
ably
wor
se th
an th
ose
in a
ll th
ose
case
s T
he c
ell i
n w
hich
the
appl
ican
ts w
ere
kept
th
ough
rela
tivel
y w
ell v
entil
ated
and
lit
was
ext
rem
ely
run-
dow
n w
ith p
aint
pee
ling
off t
he w
alls
and
ceili
ng d
irty
and
wor
n ou
t bun
k be
ds m
attr
esse
s and
bed
line
n a
nd li
tter
and
dam
p ca
rdbo
ard
on th
e flo
or (s
ee p
arag
raph
15
abov
e) I
t can
har
dly
be sa
id th
at th
ose
wer
e su
itabl
e co
nditi
ons i
n w
hich
to k
eep
a six
teen
-yea
r old
an
elev
en-y
ear o
ld a
nd e
spec
ially
a o
ne-a
nd-a
-hal
f-yea
r old
eve
n fo
r suc
h a
shor
t pe
riod
of ti
me
lsquo85
To
this
shou
ld b
e ad
ded
the
limite
d po
ssib
ilitie
s for
acc
essin
g th
e to
ilet
whi
ch ndash
as a
sser
ted
by th
e ap
plic
ants
and
as r
evea
led
by th
e vi
deo
whi
ch th
ey su
bmitt
ed (s
ee p
arag
raph
s 15
20
24a
nd 2
7 ab
ove)
ndash
forc
ed th
em to
urin
ate
onto
the
floor
of t
he c
ell i
n w
hich
they
wer
e ke
pt S
ince
the
Gove
rnm
ent d
id n
ot
disp
ute
that
ass
ertio
n or
subm
it an
y ev
iden
ce to
disp
rove
it i
t mus
t be
rega
rded
as p
rove
n
lsquo86
The
Cou
rt h
as m
any
times
hel
d in
rela
tion
to p
rison
s and
pre
-tria
l det
entio
n fa
cilit
ies
that
subj
ectin
g a
deta
inee
to th
e hu
mili
atio
n of
hav
ing
to re
lieve
him
self
or h
erse
lf in
a b
ucke
t in
the
pres
ence
of o
ther
in
mat
es c
an h
ave
no ju
stifi
catio
n e
xcep
t in
spec
ific
situa
tions
whe
re a
llow
ing
visit
s to
the
sani
tary
fa
cilit
ies w
ould
pos
e a
conc
rete
and
serio
us sa
fety
risk
(see
the
case
s cite
d in
Har
akch
iev
and
Tolu
mov
v
Bulg
aria
nos
150
181
1 an
d 61
199
12sect211
ECH
R20
14(e
xtracts))Tha
tmustb
eseen
ase
quallyifnot
mor
e a
pplic
able
to d
etai
ned
min
or m
igra
nts
AB a
nd O
ther
s v
Fran
cen
o 11
59312
12
July201
6
AF v
Gre
ece
no
537
091113 June
20
13
AM a
nd O
ther
s v
Fran
cen
o 24
58712
12
July201
6
AS v
Sw
itzer
land
no
393
501330 June
20
15
Abdi
Mah
amud
v
Mal
tan
o 56
79613
3 May201
6
Abdu
llahi
Elm
i and
Aw
eys A
buba
kar
v M
alta
nos
257
941
3 an
d 28
151
13
22 Novem
ber2
016
Al N
ashi
ri v
Pola
nd
no 287
611124 July
2014
118 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo87
The
fina
l ele
men
t to
be ta
ken
into
acc
ount
is th
e au
thor
ities
rsquo alle
ged
failu
re to
pro
vide
the
appl
ican
ts
with
food
and
drin
k fo
r mor
e th
an tw
enty
-four
hou
rs a
fter t
akin
g th
em in
to c
usto
dy (s
ee p
arag
raph
s 20
25
and
26
abov
e a
nd se
e a
lso a
s reg
ards
the
adeq
uate
pro
visio
n of
food
to p
eopl
e in
det
entio
n Kad
iķis
v L
atvi
a (n
o 2
) no
623
930
0sect554 M
ay200
6S
tepu
leac
v M
oldo
va n
o 8
207
06sect556 Novem
ber
2007
and
Kor
neyk
ova
and
Korn
eyko
v v
Ukr
aine
no
566
601
2sect141
24 March201
6)The
app
lican
tsrsquo
alle
gatio
ns in
that
resp
ect m
ust l
ikew
ise b
e se
en a
s pro
ven
giv
en th
at th
e Go
vern
men
t onl
y st
ated
th
at th
ey h
ad b
een
prov
ided
with
qua
ntiti
es o
f foo
d am
ount
ing
to th
e pr
escr
ibed
dai
ly ra
tions
with
out
com
men
ting
on th
e sp
ecifi
c al
lega
tions
abo
ut th
e se
rious
del
ay in
the
prov
ision
of f
ood
and
the
man
ner i
n w
hich
it h
ad in
fact
bee
n pr
ovid
ed (s
ee p
arag
raph
26
abov
e)
lsquo88
Nor
did
the
Gove
rnm
ent d
isput
e th
e al
lega
tion
that
the
seco
nd a
pplic
ant h
ad o
nly
been
giv
en a
cces
s to
the
baby
bot
tle a
nd th
e m
ilk o
f the
todd
ler (
the
fifth
app
lican
t) a
bout
nin
etee
n ho
urs a
fter t
hey
had
been
take
n in
to c
usto
dy (s
ee p
arag
raph
23
abov
e) T
he sm
all s
houl
der b
ag w
hich
can
be
seen
in th
e vi
deo
subm
itted
by
the
appl
ican
ts (s
ee p
arag
raph
15
abov
e) d
oes n
ot a
ppea
r to
cont
ain
such
item
s In
any
ev
ent
a fa
cilit
y in
whi
ch a
one
-and
-a-h
alf-y
ear-o
ld c
hild
is k
ept i
n cu
stod
y e
ven
for a
brie
f per
iod
of ti
me
m
ust b
e su
itabl
y eq
uipp
ed fo
r tha
t pur
pose
whi
ch d
oes n
ot a
ppea
r to
have
bee
n th
e ca
se w
ith th
e bo
rder
po
licersquo
s det
entio
n fa
cilit
y in
Vid
in
lsquo89
The
com
bina
tion
of th
e ab
ove-
men
tione
d fa
ctor
s mus
t hav
e af
fect
ed c
onsid
erab
ly th
e th
ird f
ourt
h an
d fif
th a
pplic
ants
bot
h ph
ysic
ally
and
psy
chol
ogic
ally
and
mus
t hav
e ha
d pa
rtic
ular
ly n
efar
ious
effe
cts
on th
e fif
th a
pplic
ant i
n vi
ew o
f his
very
you
ng a
ge T
hose
effe
cts w
ere
hard
ly o
ffset
by
the
few
hou
rs th
at
he sp
ent i
n th
e ho
spita
l in
Vidi
n in
the
afte
rnoo
n an
d ev
enin
g of
18A
ugus
t 201
5 (s
ee p
arag
raph
25
abov
e)
lsquo90
By
keep
ing
thos
e th
ree
appl
ican
ts in
such
con
ditio
ns e
ven
for a
brie
f per
iod
of ti
me
the
Bulg
aria
n au
thor
ities
subj
ecte
d th
em to
inhu
man
and
deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent
lsquo91
It i
s tru
e th
at in
rece
nt y
ears
the
High
Con
trac
ting
Stat
es th
at si
t on
the
Euro
pean
Uni
onrsquos
exte
rnal
bo
rder
s had
diff
icul
ties i
n co
ping
with
the
mas
sive
influ
x of
mig
rant
s (se
e M
SS
v B
elgi
um a
nd G
reec
e
citedab
ovesect223
)Bu
taperusalofthe
relevantstatisticss
howstha
talth
ough
thenu
mbe
rsarenot
negl
igib
le i
n re
cent
yea
rs B
ulga
ria h
as b
y no
mea
ns b
een
the
wor
st a
ffect
ed c
ount
ry (s
ee p
arag
raph
s 8
and
39-4
1 ab
ove)
Ind
eed
the
num
ber o
f thi
rd-c
ount
ry n
atio
nals
foun
d ill
egal
ly p
rese
nt o
n its
terr
itory
in
the
cour
se o
f 201
5 w
as a
bout
twen
ty ti
mes
low
er th
an in
Gre
ece
and
abou
t for
ty-fo
ur ti
mes
low
er th
an
in H
unga
ry (i
bid
) It
cann
ot th
eref
ore
be sa
id th
at a
t the
rele
vant
tim
e Bu
lgar
ia w
as fa
cing
an
emer
genc
y of
such
pro
port
ions
that
it w
as p
ract
ical
ly im
poss
ible
for i
ts to
ens
ure
min
imal
ly d
ecen
t con
ditio
ns in
th
e sh
ort-t
erm
hol
ding
faci
litie
s in
whi
ch th
ey d
ecid
ed to
pla
ce m
inor
mig
rant
s im
med
iate
ly a
fter t
heir
inte
rcep
tion
and
arre
st (c
ontr
ast
mut
atis
mut
andi
s K
hlai
fia a
nd O
ther
scite
dab
ovesectsect17
8-83
)
Alim
ov v
Tur
key
no
143
4413
6 Septem
ber2
016
Anan
yev
and
Oth
ers
v Ru
ssia
nos
425
250
7 an
d 60
800
08
10 Ja
nuary20
12
Atan
asov
and
Ap
osto
lov
v Bu
lgar
ia
(dec
) no
s 655
401
6 an
d22
36817
27 June
20
17
Chob
an v
Bul
garia
(dec)no
487
3799
23 Ju
ne200
5
Davy
dov
and
O
ther
s v U
krai
ne
nos 1
7674
02
and
3908
102
1 Ju
ly201
0
De lo
s San
tos a
nd
de la
Cru
z v G
reec
e
nos 2
134
12 a
nd
2161
1226 June
201
4
Dem
opou
los a
nd O
ther
s v
Turk
ey (d
ec) [
GC]
nos 4
6113
99
384
302
13
751
02 1
3466
03
10
200
04 1
4163
04
19
993
04 2
1819
04
1 March201
0
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 119
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo92
In
any
even
t in
vie
w o
f the
abs
olut
e ch
arac
ter o
f Art
icle
3 o
f the
Con
vent
ion
an
incr
easin
g in
flux
of
mig
rant
s can
not a
bsol
ve a
Hig
h Co
ntra
ctin
g St
ate
of it
s obl
igat
ions
und
er th
at p
rovi
sion
whi
ch re
quire
s th
at p
eopl
e de
priv
ed o
f the
ir lib
erty
be
guar
ante
ed c
ondi
tions
com
patib
le w
ith re
spec
t for
thei
r hum
an
dign
ity A
situ
atio
n of
ext
rem
e di
fficu
lty c
onfr
ontin
g th
e au
thor
ities
is h
owev
er o
ne o
f the
fact
ors i
n th
e as
sess
men
t whe
ther
or n
ot th
ere
has b
een
a br
each
of t
hat A
rtic
le in
rela
tion
to th
e co
nditi
ons i
n w
hich
suchpeo
plearekeptin
custody
(ibidsectsect18
4-85
)
lsquo93
In
view
of t
he a
bove
con
sider
atio
ns t
he C
ourt
con
clud
es th
at th
ere
has b
een
a br
each
of A
rtic
le 3
of
the
Conv
entio
n w
ith re
spec
t to
the
third
fou
rth
and
fifth
app
lican
tsrsquo
Djal
ti v
Bulg
aria
no
312
060512 March
2013
Erke
nov
v Tu
rkey
no
181
5211
6 Septem
ber2
016
Foti
and
Oth
ers v
Ital
y
nos 7
604
76 7
719
76
7781
7711 May197
8
Giul
iani
and
Ga
ggio
v It
aly
[GC]
no
234
580224 March
2011
Gros
s v S
witz
erla
nd
[GC]n
o 67
81010
30
Sep
tembe
r201
4
Hara
kchi
ev a
nd
Tolu
mov
v B
ulga
ria
nos 1
5018
11
and
6119
912
8 Ju
ly201
4
Hous
ein
v Gr
eece
no
718
2511
24 Octob
er201
3
Husa
yn (A
bu
Zuba
ydah
) v P
olan
d
no 751
113
24 July
2014
Irela
nd v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no 53
1071
18 Ja
nuary19
78
120 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Jano
wie
c and
Oth
ers
v Ru
ssia
[GC]
no
s 555
080
7 an
d 295200921 Octob
er
2013
Kadiķis v
Latv
ia (n
o 2)
no
62393004 M
ay
2006
Kana
gara
tnam
v
Belg
ium
no 1529709
13 Decem
ber2
011
Khla
ifia
and
Oth
ers v
Ital
y
[GC]no 1648312
15 Decem
ber2
016
Korn
eyko
va a
nd
Korn
eyko
v v U
krai
ne
no 566601224 March
2016
Loizd
ou v
Turk
ey
(pre
limin
ary
obje
ctio
ns)
no 153188923 March
1995
MSS
v B
elgi
um
and
Gree
ce [
GC]
no 306960921 Janu
ary
2011
Mah
amed
Jam
a v
Mal
tano 1029013
26 Novem
ber2
015
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 121
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Mah
mun
di a
nd O
ther
s v
Gree
cen
o 14
90210
31
July201
2
McF
eele
y an
d ot
hers
v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no
831
778
2 Octob
er
1984
Miro
ļubo
vs and
Others
v La
tvia
no 79
805
15
Sep
tembe
r200
9
Moh
amad
v G
reec
e
no 705
8611
11 Decem
ber2
014
Mox
amed
Ism
aaci
il an
d Ab
dira
hman
War
sam
e v
Mal
ta n
os 5
2160
13
and
5216
513
12
Janu
ary20
16
Mus
khad
zhiy
eva
and
Oth
ers v
Bel
gium
no
414
4207
19 Ja
nuary20
10
Nac
hova
and
Oth
ers
v Bu
lgar
ia [G
C]
nos 4
3577
98
and
4357
998
6 Ju
ly200
5
122 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Nesh
kov a
nd O
ther
s v
Bulg
aria
nos
36
925
10 2
1487
12
72
893
12 7
3196
12
77
718
12 a
nd 9
717
13
27 Janu
ary2015
Popo
v v Fr
ance
no
s 394
720
7 an
d 394740719 Janu
ary
2012
Pose
vini
v B
ulga
ria
no 636381419 Janu
ary
2017
RC a
nd V
C v
Fran
ce
no 764911412 July
2016
RK a
nd O
ther
s v Fr
ance
no
682641412 July
2016
RM a
nd O
ther
s v Fr
ance
no
332011112 July
2016
Rahi
mi v
Gre
ece
no
8687085 April
2011
SAS
v Fr
ance
[GC]
no
43835111 Ju
ly
2014
Sarg
syan
v A
zerb
aija
n [GC]no 4016706
16 Ju
ne2015
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 123
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Scoz
zari
and
Giun
ta v
Ital
y [G
C]
nos 3
9221
98
and
419639813 July2000
Step
ulea
c v M
oldo
va
no 820706
6 No
vembe
r2007
Tara
khel
v Sw
itzer
land
[GC]no 2921712
4 No
vembe
r2014
Tehr
ani a
nd O
ther
s v
Turk
ey n
os 3
2940
08
41
626
08 4
3661
608
13 April2
010
124 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R
Thim
otha
wes
v B
elgi
um
no 390
6111(in
French
with
Eng
lish
sum
mar
y)
040
420
18
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 5
ECH
R ndash
dete
ntio
n ndash
asyl
um-s
eeke
r ndash re
foul
emen
t ndash m
enta
l hea
lth o
f the
app
lican
t
Uno
ffici
al tr
ansla
tion
Para
79
lsquo79M
oreo
vertheCo
urtcon
siderstha
tinorderto
find
aviolatio
nofArticle5sect1the
app
lican
tsho
uld
have
est
ablis
hed
that
he
was
in a
par
ticul
ar si
tuat
ion
whi
ch c
ould
prim
a fa
cie
lead
to th
e co
nclu
sion
that
hisd
eten
tionwasnotju
stified
(see
con
verselyYoh-EkaleMwan
jecite
dab
ovesect124
)Ho
weverthe
ap
plic
antrsquos
men
tal h
ealth
alo
ne w
as n
ot i
n th
e pr
esen
t cas
e su
ch a
s to
lead
to su
ch a
con
clus
ion
the
appl
ican
t rec
eive
d sp
ecia
l car
e in
the
two
clos
ed c
entr
es w
here
he
stay
ed a
nd th
e re
port
s dra
wn
up b
y th
e ps
ycho
logi
cal s
uppo
rt se
rvic
es d
id n
ot in
dica
te a
ny c
ontr
a-in
dica
tion
to d
eten
tion
(see
par
agra
phs 3
4-35
ab
ove)
rsquo
A an
d O
ther
s v
Uni
ted
King
dom
[GC]n
o 34
5505
19 Feb
ruary20
09
AB a
nd O
ther
s v
Fran
cen
o 11
59312
12
July201
6
Abdu
llahi
Elm
i and
Aw
eys A
buba
kar
v M
alta
nos
257
941
3 an
d 28
151
13
22 Novem
ber2
016
Anhe
user
-Bus
ch
Inc
v Po
rtug
al
[GC]n
o 73
04901
11
Janu
ary20
07
Assa
nidz
e v
Geor
gia
[GC]n
o 71
50301
8 Ap
ril200
4
Chah
al v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(GC
) no
224
1493
15 Novem
ber1
995
Čonka
v Be
lgiu
m
no 515
6499
5 Februa
ry200
2
Crea
ngă
v Ro
man
ia
[GC]n
o 29
22603
23
Feb
ruary20
12
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 125
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Del R
iacuteo P
rada
v S
pain
[GC]no 4275009
21 Octob
er2013
Hass
an v
The
Un
ited
King
dom
[GC]no 2975009
19 Sep
tembe
r2014
Hous
ein
v Gr
eece
no
7182511
24 Octob
er2013
Jeun
esse
v T
he
Neth
erla
nds [
GC]
no 12738103 Octob
er
2014
Kana
gara
tnam
v
Belg
ium
no 1529709
13 Decem
ber2
011
Khla
ifia
and
Oth
ers v
Ital
y [GC]no 1648312
15 Decem
ber2
016
Khol
mur
odov
v R
ussia
no
58923141 M
arch
2016
Labi
ta c
Italy
[GC]
no
26772956 April
2000
126 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Med
vedy
ev a
nd
Oth
ers v
Fran
ce [G
C]
no 33940329 March
2010
Moo
ren
v Ge
rman
y [GC]no 1136403
9 July2009
Moz
er v
The
Rup
ublic
of
Mol
dova
and
Rus
sia
[GC]no 1113810
23 Fe
bruary2016
Mub
ilanz
ila M
ayek
a an
d Ka
niki
Mitu
nga
v Be
lgiu
m no
1317
803
12 Octob
er2006
Mus
khad
zhiy
eva
and
Oth
ers v
Bel
gium
no
414420719 Janu
ary
2010
Nabi
l and
Oth
ers
v Hun
garyno 6211612
22 Sep
tembe
r2015
Ntum
ba K
abon
go
v Be
lgiu
m (d
ec)
no 52467992 Ju
ne
2005
Para
diso
and
Ca
mpa
nelli
v Ita
ly
[GC]no 2535812
24 Janu
ary2017
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 127
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Popo
v v Fr
ance
no
s 394
720
7 an
d 394740719 Janu
ary
2012
Rahi
mi v
Gre
ece
no
8687085 April
2011
Rohl
ena
v Th
e Cz
ech
Repu
blic
[GC]
no
595520827 Janu
ary
2015
Rusu
v A
ustr
ia
no 34082022 Octob
er
2008
Saad
i v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
[GC]no 1322903
29 Janu
ary2008
Suso
Mus
a v
Mal
ta
no 423371223 July
2013
Taku
sh v
Gre
ece
no
28530917 Janu
ary
2012
Ulle
ns d
e Sc
hoot
en a
nd
Reza
bek
v Be
lgiu
m
nos 3
989
07
et 3
8353
07
20 Sep
tembe
r2011
128 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Wai
te a
nd K
enne
dy
v Ge
rman
y [G
C]
no 2608394
18 Fe
bruary1999
Yoh-
Ekal
e M
wan
je
v Be
lgiu
mno 1048610
20 Decem
ber2
011
ECtH
R
HA e
t aut
res c
Gregrave
ce
no 199
5116(in
French
with
Eng
lish
sum
mar
y)
280
220
19
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R - i
nhum
an a
nd d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t - co
nditi
ons o
f the
app
lican
tsrsquo d
eten
tion
in th
e po
lice
stat
ions
Unof
ficia
l tra
nsla
tion
Para
s 11
1-11
5
lsquo111O
n13 April2
016th
eprosecutoratthe
KilkisMagistratesrsquoCo
urto
rdered
aprelim
inaryinvestigation
lsquo112
In
the
cour
se o
f tha
t inv
estig
atio
n co
nduc
ted
by th
e po
lice
offic
ers o
f the
Kilk
is po
lice
stat
ion
the
offic
ers
who
wereon
dutyatth
atstationon
8and
9 April2
016th
epo
liceofficerwho
hadaccom
panied
thetw
oap
plica
nts t
o th
e Ki
lkis
hosp
ital a
nd th
e po
lice
offic
er w
ho h
ad ta
ken
the
appl
icant
liste
d in
App
endi
x 7 to
the
Thes
salo
niki
hos
pita
l mad
e re
port
s Th
e po
lice
offic
er w
ho h
ad a
ccom
pani
ed th
e tw
o ap
plica
nts t
o th
e Ki
lkis
hosp
ital s
tate
d th
at ldquot
he a
pplic
ants
did
not
hav
e th
e at
titud
e of
sick
or b
eate
n-up
peo
ple
and
show
ed a
t all
times
that
they
wer
e w
ellrdquo
In a
dditi
on f
our f
orei
gn n
atio
nals
who
had
bee
n de
tain
ed a
t the
sam
e tim
e as
the
two
appl
icant
s at t
he K
ilkis
polic
e st
atio
n al
so g
ave
stat
emen
ts t
hey
stat
ed th
at th
e be
havi
our o
f the
pol
ice
offic
ers t
owar
ds th
e ap
plica
nts h
ad b
een
corr
ect
that
they
had
not
use
d an
y vi
olen
ce a
gain
st th
e ap
plica
nts
that
they
had
repe
ated
ly a
sked
the
appl
icant
s whe
ther
they
wish
ed to
go
to h
ospi
tal a
nd th
at a
t one
poi
nt
whe
n th
e ap
plica
nts h
ad re
port
edly
bee
n ca
lm t
hey
had
begu
n to
pro
test
and
requ
este
d th
eir t
rans
fer t
o ho
spita
l a
requ
est w
hich
wou
ld h
ave
been
gra
nted
lsquo113
On
the
basis
of t
hese
fact
s th
e Ki
lkis
polic
e st
atio
n se
nt a
repo
rt to
the
publ
ic pr
osec
utor
at t
he K
ilkis
Mag
istra
tesrsquo
Cour
t sta
ting
that
thr
ough
out t
he tw
o ap
plica
ntsrsquo
stay
at t
he p
olice
stat
ion
the
polic
e of
ficer
srsquo co
nduc
t tow
ards
the
appl
icant
s had
bee
n ap
prop
riate
and
resp
ectfu
l of h
uman
righ
ts a
nd o
f the
rule
s and
law
s go
vern
ing
the
oper
atio
n of
the
Gree
k po
lice
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 129
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
lsquo114O
n24 Octob
er2016thepu
blicprosecutoratthe
KilkisMagistratesrsquoCo
urtp
ropo
sedtoclosethecase
He p
oint
ed o
ut th
at th
e ab
ove-
men
tione
d re
port
s sho
wed
that
the
polic
e of
ficer
s had
not
eng
aged
in v
iole
nt
beha
viou
r th
at th
e ap
plica
nts t
hem
selve
s had
bee
n th
e ca
use
of th
e un
rest
at K
ilkis
polic
e st
atio
n th
at th
ey
had
been
tran
sferr
ed to
hos
pita
l th
at th
ey co
uld
com
mun
icate
with
third
par
ties (
repr
esen
tativ
es o
f non
-go
vern
men
tal o
rgan
isatio
ns) a
nd th
at n
one
of th
eir a
llega
tions
had
bee
n co
nfirm
ed b
y an
y ev
iden
ce H
e st
ated
th
at w
hene
ver t
he a
pplic
ants
had
requ
este
d it
they
had
bee
n tra
nsfe
rred
to K
ilkis
Hosp
ital
whe
re th
ey h
ad
been
foun
d to
be
in g
ood
heal
th a
nd th
at o
nly
the
appl
icant
liste
d in
the
anne
x und
er n
umbe
r 7 h
ad sh
own
som
e sy
mpt
oms o
f dizz
ines
s and
suffo
catio
n w
ith a
card
iolo
gica
l cau
se
lsquo115O
n25 Janu
ary2017th
epu
blicprosecutoratthe
The
ssalon
ikiCou
rtofA
ppealapp
rovedthede
cisionof
the
publ
ic pr
osec
utor
in K
ilkis
and
close
d th
e ca
sersquo
130 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
ECtH
R (G
rand
Ch
ambe
r)
Ilias
and
Ahm
ed
v Hu
ngar
y
no 472
8715
211
120
19
ECtH
R ju
dgm
ent
Artic
le 3
ECH
R - i
nhum
an a
nd d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t ndash re
mov
al to
Ser
bia
Para
192
lsquo192
The
Gra
nd C
ham
ber e
ndor
ses t
he C
ham
berrsquos
vie
w th
at w
hile
it is
true
that
asy
lum
-see
kers
may
be
cons
ider
ed v
ulne
rabl
e be
caus
e of
eve
ryth
ing
they
mig
ht h
ave
been
thro
ugh
durin
g th
eir m
igra
tion
and
the
trau
mat
ic e
xper
ienc
es th
ey w
ere
likel
y to
hav
e en
dure
d pr
evio
usly
(see
MS
S v
Bel
gium
and
Gre
ece)
th
ere
is no
indi
catio
n th
at th
e ap
plic
ants
in th
e pr
esen
t cas
e w
ere
mor
e vu
lner
able
than
any
oth
er a
dult
asyl
um-s
eeke
r con
fined
to th
e Rӧ
szke
tran
sit zo
ne in
Sep
tem
ber 2
015
In p
artic
ular
the
ir al
lega
tions
ab
out h
ards
hip
and
ill-t
reat
men
t end
ured
in P
akist
an A
fgha
nist
an I
ran
Dub
ai a
nd T
urke
y co
ncer
n a
perio
d of
tim
e w
hich
end
ed in
201
0 or
201
1 fo
r the
firs
t app
lican
t and
in 2
013
for t
he se
cond
app
lican
t Al
so t
he C
ourt
doe
s not
con
sider
that
the
psyc
hiat
ristrsquos
opi
nion
(see
par
agra
ph 3
0 ab
ove)
subm
itted
by
the
appl
ican
ts is
dec
isive
hav
ing
rega
rd to
its c
onte
xt a
nd c
onte
nt a
nd ta
king
into
con
sider
atio
n th
at th
e ap
plic
ants
stay
ed a
t the
Rӧs
zke
tran
sit zo
ne fo
r the
rela
tivel
y sh
ort p
erio
d of
23
days
the
psy
chia
trist
rsquos ob
serv
atio
ns c
anno
t lea
d to
the
conc
lusio
n th
at th
e ot
herw
ise a
ccep
tabl
e co
nditi
ons a
t the
Rӧs
zke
tran
sit
zone
wer
e pa
rtic
ular
ly il
l-sui
ted
in th
e ap
plic
ants
rsquo ind
ivid
ual c
ircum
stan
ces t
o su
ch a
n ex
tent
as t
o am
ount
to
ill-t
reat
men
t con
trar
y to
Art
icle
3rsquo
Abdu
laziz
Cab
ales
and
Ba
lkand
ali v
Uni
ted
King
dom
nos
921
480
94
738
1 9
474
81
Abuy
eva
and
Oth
ers
v Ru
ssia2 Decem
ber
2010no 2706505
28 M
ay1985
Al D
ulim
i and
Mon
tana
M
anag
emen
t Inc
v
Switz
erla
nd [G
C]
no 58090821 June
20
16
Alla
n v
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m
(dec)no
485399928
Augu
st 2
001
Amuu
r v F
ranc
e
no 197
769225 June
19
96
Avotiņš v
Lat
via
[GC]
no
175
020723 May
2016
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 131
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Azin
as v
Cyp
rus [
GC]
no 566
790028 Ap
ril
2004
Baba
jano
v v
Turk
ey
no 498
670810 May
2016
Bosp
horu
s Hav
a Yo
llari
Turiz
m v
e Ti
care
t An
onim
Sirk
eti v
Irel
and
[GC]n
o 45
03698
30
June
200
5
Budr
evic
h v
Czec
h Re
publ
icn
o 65
30310
17
Octob
er201
3
Buza
dji v
Mol
dova
[GC]n
o 23
75507
5 July201
6
Chah
al v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(GC
) no
224
1493
15 Novem
ber1
995
DH a
nd O
ther
s v
Czec
h Re
publ
ic
[GC]n
o 57
32500
13
Novem
ber2
007
De To
mm
aso
v Ita
ly
[GC]n
o 43
39509
23
Feb
ruary20
17
132 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
De W
ilde
Oom
s and
Ve
rsyp
nos
283
266
28
356
6 2
899
66
10 M
arch197
2
FG v
Sw
eden
[GC]
no
436
111123 March
2016
Faacutebi
aacuten v
Hun
gary
[GC]n
o 78
11713
5 Septem
ber2
017
Gahr
aman
ov
v Az
erba
ijan
(dec
) no
262
910
6
15 Octob
er201
3
Gillb
erg
v Sw
eden
[GC]
no
417
23063 April
2012
Goumlccedil
v Tu
rkey
[GC]
no
365
909711 July
2002
Guer
ra a
nd
Oth
ers v
Ital
y
no 116
199
673
593
2
19 Feb
ruary19
98
Guzz
ardi
v It
aly
no
736
776
6 Novem
ber1
980
HLR
v Fr
ance
no
245
739429 Ap
ril
1997
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 133
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Herr
man
n v
Germ
any
[GC]n
o 93
0007
26 Ju
ne201
2
Hila
l v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
no 452
76996 M
arch
2001
Hirs
i Jam
aa a
nd
Oth
ers v
Ital
y [G
C]
no 277
6509
23 Feb
ruary20
12
II v
Bulg
aria
no
440
82989 Ju
ne
2005
J and
Oth
ers v
Gre
ece
no
226
9616
25 Ja
nuary20
18
K an
d T
v Fi
nlan
d [G
C]
no 257
029412 July
2001
KRS
v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m
(dec)no
327
3308
2 De
cembe
r200
8
Kasp
arov
v R
ussia
no
536
5907
11 Octob
er201
6
Khla
ifia
and
Oth
ers v
Ital
y [G
C]
no 164
8312
15 Decem
ber2
016
134 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Kovačić an
d Others
v Sl
oven
ia [G
C]
nos 4
4574
98
45
133
98 4
8316
99
3 Octob
er200
8
Kurić
and
Others
v Sl
oven
ia [G
C]
no 268
280612 March
2014
Kurt
v T
urke
y
no 1519
97799
100
2
25 M
ay199
8
MSS
v B
elgi
um
and
Gree
ce [
GC]
no 306
9609
21 Ja
nuary20
11
Mah
did
and
Hadd
ar
v Au
stria
(dec
) no
747
6201
8 De
cembe
r200
5
Mam
atku
lov
and
Aska
rov
v Tu
rkey
[GC]
no
s 468
279
9 an
d 46
95199
4 Feb
ruary
2005
Mog
oş v
Rom
ania
(dec)no
204
2002
6 May200
4
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 135
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Moh
amm
adi v
Aus
tria
no
719
32123 Ju
ly
2014
Moh
amm
ed H
usse
in
and
Oth
ers v
the
Net
herla
nds a
nd It
aly
(dec)no
277
2510
2 Ap
ril201
3
Mur
ray
v th
e N
ethe
rland
s [GC
] no
105
111026 Ap
ril
2016
Nad
a v
Switz
erla
nd
[GC]n
o 10
59308
12
Sep
tembe
r201
2
Nol
an a
nd K
v
Russ
ian
o 25
1204
12 Feb
ruary20
09
Osy
penk
o v
Ukr
aine
no
463
404
9 Novem
ber2
010
Papo
shvi
li v
Belg
ium
no
417
3810
13 Decem
ber2
016
Pern
a v
Italy
[GC]
no
488
98996 M
ay
2003
Pisa
no v
Ital
y (s
trik
ing
out)[G
C]n
o 36
73297
24
Octob
er200
2
136 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Rado
milj
a an
d O
ther
s v
Croa
tia [G
C]
nos 3
7685
10
and
2276
812
20 March
2018
Riad
and
Idia
b v
Belg
ium
no
s 297
870
3 an
d 29
81003
24 Janu
ary
2008
Sabri G
uumlneş
v T
urke
y [GC]n
o 27
39606
29
June
201
2
Sala
h Sh
eekh
v
the
Net
herla
nds
no
194
804
11 Janu
ary
2007
Sham
sa v
Pol
and
no
s 453
559
9 an
d 45
357
99
27 Novem
ber2
003
Shar
ifi v
Aus
tria
no
601
0408
15 Decem
ber2
013
Siso
jeva
and
O
ther
s v L
atvi
a [GC]n
o 60
65400
15
Janu
ary20
07
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 137
Cour
tCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
date
Rele
vanc
eke
ywor
dsk
ey re
leva
nt p
arag
raph
sCa
ses c
ited
Soer
ing
v Un
ited
King
dom
no
1403
888
7 July198
9
TI v
Uni
ted
King
dom
(dec)no
438
4498
7 March200
0
Tara
khel
v S
witz
erla
nd
[GC]
no
2921
712
4 Novem
ber2
014
Uumlne
r v th
e N
ethe
rland
s [GC]n
o 46
41099
18
Octob
er200
6
Venskutė
v L
ithua
nia
no
106
4508
11 Decem
ber2
012
Vija
yana
than
and
Pu
spar
ajah
v F
ranc
e
no 178
259127
Augu
st 1
992
Vilv
araj
ah a
nd O
ther
s v
Uni
ted
King
dom
no
s 131
638
7
1316
487
131
658
7
1344
787
134
488
7
30 Octob
er199
1
Zuba
c v
Croa
tia [G
C]
no 401
60125 April
2018
138 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Uni
ted
Nat
ions
hum
an ri
ghts
mon
itorin
g co
mm
ittee
s
Com
mitt
eeCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
dat
eRe
leva
nce
keyw
ords
key
rele
vant
par
agra
phs
Case
s cite
d
Com
mitt
ee
Agai
nst
Tort
ure
Gba
djav
i v S
witz
erla
nd
CAT
C48
D3
962
009
010
720
12
Deci
sion
of th
e Co
mm
ittee
aga
inst
Tort
ure
unde
r Art
icle
22
of th
e Co
nven
tion
agai
nst T
ortu
re a
nd O
ther
Cr
uel
Inhu
man
or D
egra
ding
Tre
atm
ent o
r Pun
ishm
ent
Risk
of c
ompl
aina
ntrsquos
depo
rtat
ion
to To
go -
Depo
rtat
ion
of a
per
son
to a
noth
er S
tate
whe
re th
ere
are
subs
tant
ial g
roun
ds fo
r bel
ievi
ng th
at h
e w
ould
be
in d
ange
r of b
eing
subj
ecte
d to
tort
ure
Para
78
lsquo78
As t
o th
e m
edic
al c
ertif
icat
es a
nd re
port
s sub
mitt
ed in
supp
ort o
f the
com
plai
nant
rsquos as
ylum
ap
plicationth
ethreemed
icalcertificatesof2
5 July200
77 M
arch200
8an
d29
April20
09con
firm
the
prec
ario
us m
enta
l hea
lth o
f the
com
plai
nant
whi
ch is
con
nect
ed to
his
past
exp
erie
nces
As t
o th
e med
icalre
portof1
8 May200
9iss
uedbyth
epsychiatric
servicesofS
olothu
rnthe
Com
mittee
notes
that
it m
entio
ns te
rror
ism o
r tor
ture
as a
pos
sible
cau
se o
f the
pos
t-tra
umat
ic st
ress
diso
rder
that
the
com
plai
nant
was
dia
gnos
ed a
s hav
ing
The
Com
mitt
ee is
of t
he v
iew
that
such
ele
men
ts sh
ould
hav
e ca
ught
the
atte
ntio
n of
the
Stat
e pa
rty
and
cons
titut
ed su
ffici
ent g
roun
ds fo
r inv
estig
atin
g th
e al
lege
d ris
ks m
ore
thor
ough
ly T
he F
eder
al A
dmin
istra
tive
Cour
t sim
ply
reje
cted
them
bec
ause
they
wer
e no
t lik
ely
to c
all i
nto
ques
tion
the
asse
ssm
ent o
f the
fact
s mad
e in
pre
viou
s rul
ings
By
proc
eedi
ng in
thus
w
ithou
t con
sider
ing
thos
e el
emen
ts e
ven
thou
gh th
ey w
ere
subm
itted
at a
late
stag
e in
the
proc
eedi
ngs
th
e Sw
iss a
utho
ritie
s fai
led
in th
eir o
blig
atio
n to
ens
ure
that
the
com
plai
nant
wou
ld n
ot b
e at
risk
of b
eing
su
bjec
ted
to to
rtur
e if
he w
ere
retu
rned
to To
gorsquo
SPA
v Ca
nada
no
282
200
5
7 Novem
ber2
006
TI v
Can
ada
no
333
200
7
15 Novem
ber2
010
AMA
v Sw
itzer
land
no
344
200
8
12 Novem
ber2
010
AR v
Net
herla
nds
no
203
200
2
21 Novem
ber2
003
AA e
t al v
Sw
itzer
land
no
285
200
6
10 Novem
ber2
008
RT-N
v S
witz
erla
nd
no 350
200
83 Ju
ne
2011
Hum
an R
ight
s Co
mm
ittee
Tog
o
(CCP
RC
TGO
CO
4)
18 April20
11
Com
mitt
ee a
gain
st
Tort
ure
Togo
(CA
TC
TGOCO1)28
July
2006
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 139
Com
mitt
eeCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
dat
eRe
leva
nce
keyw
ords
key
rele
vant
par
agra
phs
Case
s cite
d
Com
mitt
ee
Agai
nst
Tort
ure
KH v
Den
mar
k
CAT
C49
D 4
642
011
231
120
12
Deci
sion
of th
e Co
mm
ittee
aga
inst
Tort
ure
unde
r Art
icle
22
of th
e Co
nven
tion
agai
nst T
ortu
re a
nd O
ther
Cr
uel
Inhu
man
or D
egra
ding
Tre
atm
ent o
r Pun
ishm
ent
Expu
lsion
of t
he c
ompl
aina
nt to
Afg
hani
stan
ndash ri
sk o
f tor
ture
upo
n re
turn
to th
e co
untr
y of
orig
in
Para
24
lsquo24The
com
plaina
ntarrived
inDen
markon
25 July201
0with
outv
alidtraveldocum
entsand
app
liedfor
asyl
um th
e ne
xt d
ay S
ince
he
was
illit
erat
e he
cou
ld n
ot c
ompl
ete
the
asyl
um a
pplic
atio
n fo
rm b
y hi
mse
lf
He c
laim
ed th
at h
e w
as fl
eein
g fr
om th
e Ta
liban
and
the
Afgh
an a
utho
ritie
s H
e ha
d be
en d
etai
ned
by th
e Ta
liban
and
then
arr
este
d by
the
auth
oriti
es a
nd w
rong
ly a
ccus
ed o
f a te
rror
ist b
ombi
ng a
ttac
k w
hile
in
dete
ntio
n he
had
bee
n ill
-tre
ated
and
tort
ured
in su
ch a
way
that
som
e of
his
ribs h
ad b
een
brok
en H
e ad
ded
that
tort
ure
was
wid
espr
ead
in A
fgha
nist
an a
nd th
at th
e au
thor
ities
wer
e un
able
to p
rote
ct th
e po
pula
tion
from
the
Talib
anrsquos
viol
ence
He
fear
ed fo
r his
life
since
he
had
been
arr
este
d by
the
auth
oriti
es
in c
onne
ctio
n w
ith a
n ex
plos
ion
in Ja
lala
bad
he
had
been
forc
ed b
y th
e Ta
liban
to c
oope
rate
with
them
an
d he
had
esc
aped
from
pris
on a
fter p
ayin
g a
brib
e If
re-a
rres
ted
he
wou
ld b
e su
bjec
ted
to to
rtur
e an
d ki
lled
He
fear
ed th
e sa
me
if th
e Ta
liban
wer
e to
find
him
sin
ce th
ey st
ill b
elie
ved
that
he
was
a sp
y fo
r th
e Go
vern
men
t Th
e co
mpl
aina
nt w
as n
ot a
war
e of
the
whe
reab
outs
of h
is fa
mily
and
cou
ld n
ot p
rovi
de
a na
tiona
lity
cert
ifica
te is
sued
by
his c
ount
ry o
f orig
inrsquo
Para
54
lsquo54
The
Dan
ish a
utho
ritie
s bas
ed th
eir a
sses
smen
t abo
ut th
e cr
edib
ility
of h
is cl
aim
on
the
dive
rgen
t st
atem
ents
he
gave
at t
he b
egin
ning
of t
he a
sylu
m p
roce
edin
gs H
owev
er t
his p
robl
em o
ften
occu
rs in
th
e fir
st in
terv
iew
of a
sylu
m se
eker
s si
nce
they
fear
to te
ll th
e tr
uth
and
feel
inse
cure
Nev
erth
eles
s th
e co
mpl
aina
nt in
form
ed th
e im
mig
ratio
n au
thor
ities
abo
ut th
e ci
rcum
stan
ces i
n w
hich
he
was
tort
ured
and
ev
en su
bmitt
ed m
edic
al e
vide
nce
in su
ppor
t of h
is cl
aim
He
reite
rate
s tha
t his
stat
emen
tsrsquo i
ncon
siste
ncie
s w
ere
caus
ed b
y in
adeq
uate
inte
rpre
tatio
n w
hich
in h
is ca
se w
as p
artic
ular
ly im
port
ant s
ince
he
is ill
itera
te a
nd c
ould
not
read
and
con
firm
whe
ther
tran
slatio
ns re
flect
ed in
an
accu
rate
man
ner w
hat h
e w
ished
to c
omm
unic
ate
to th
e au
thor
ities
His
coun
sel c
ould
not
che
ck th
e ac
cura
cy o
f the
tran
slatio
n sin
ce h
e is
not a
Pas
hto
spea
ker
Ther
efor
e th
ere
was
no
way
to v
erify
whe
ther
thes
e tr
ansla
tions
not
ed
in th
e de
cisio
ns o
f the
Imm
igra
tion
Serv
ice
and
the
Refu
gee
Appe
als B
oard
wer
e co
rrec
t and
acc
urat
ersquo
Amin
i v D
enm
ark
no
339
200
8
15 Novem
ber2
010
ERK
and
YK v
Sw
eden
no
s 270
200
5 an
d 27
120
053
0 Ap
ril
2007
SPA
v Ca
nada
no
282
200
5
7 Novem
ber2
006
FFZ
v De
nmar
k
no 180
200
130 Ap
ril
2002
SC v
Den
mar
k
no 143
199
910 May
2000
RD v
Sw
eden
no
220
200
22 M
ay
2005
SSS
v Ca
nada
no
245
200
4
16 Novem
ber2
005
MRA
v S
wed
en
no 286
200
6
17 Novem
ber2
006
Elm
i v A
ustr
alia
no
120
199
814 May
2009
140 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Com
mitt
eeCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
dat
eRe
leva
nce
keyw
ords
key
rele
vant
par
agra
phs
Case
s cite
d
Para
86
lsquo86
The
Com
mitt
ee n
otes
that
the
com
plai
nant
cont
ests
the
Stat
e pa
rtyrsquos
ass
essm
ent a
s to
the
risk
he w
ould
fa
ce if
retu
rned
to A
fgha
nist
an H
e cla
ims t
hat h
e w
ould
be
at ri
sk o
f per
secu
tion
by th
e Ta
liban
and
the
Afgh
an
auth
oriti
es T
he C
omm
ittee
not
es th
at th
e co
mpl
aina
nt cl
aim
s tha
t the
Sta
te p
arty
has
not
exp
lain
ed w
hy th
e un
cont
este
d cla
im co
ncer
ning
the
viol
ence
he
was
subj
ecte
d to
by
the
Talib
an is
not
rele
vant
und
er a
sylu
m
law
and
that
the
auth
oriti
es fa
iled
to a
sses
s whe
ther
the
Afgh
an a
utho
ritie
s wou
ld b
e ab
le to
pro
tect
him
ag
ains
t pos
sible
repr
isals
from
the
Talib
an A
s to
his c
laim
abo
ut th
e vi
olen
ce in
flict
ed b
y th
e Af
ghan
aut
horit
ies
the
Com
mitt
ee a
lso n
otes
that
the
com
plai
nant
clai
ms t
hat t
he S
tate
par
ty b
ased
its a
sses
smen
t abo
ut th
e cr
edib
ility
of h
is cla
im o
n th
e di
verg
ent s
tate
men
ts h
e ga
ve w
ithin
the
asyl
um p
roce
edin
gs t
hat h
is st
atem
entrsquos
in
cons
isten
cy st
emm
ed fr
om in
adeq
uate
lang
uage
inte
rpre
tatio
n a
nd th
at h
e w
as u
nabl
e to
chec
k it
since
he
is illi
tera
te H
e fu
rthe
r arg
ues t
hat a
lthou
gh h
e re
ques
ted
the
Refu
gee
Appe
als B
oard
for a
spec
ializ
ed m
edica
l ex
amin
atio
n in
ord
er to
verif
y w
heth
er h
e ha
s sig
ns o
f tor
ture
and
show
ed th
e Bo
ard
alle
ged
signs
of t
ortu
re
on h
is ha
nds a
nd o
ne le
g or
foot
the
Boa
rd re
ject
ed h
is re
ques
t for
asy
lum
with
out o
rder
ing
this
exam
inat
ion
rsquo
Para
88
lsquo88
The
Com
mitt
ee o
bser
ves t
hat i
n th
e in
terv
iew
s bef
ore
the
Dani
sh Im
mig
ratio
n Se
rvice
and
the
Refu
gee
Appe
als B
oard
the
com
plai
nant
who
is ill
itera
te p
rovi
ded
inco
nsist
ent s
tate
men
ts a
s to
his p
lace
of o
rigin
the
cir
cum
stan
ces i
n w
hich
he
was
det
aine
d by
the
Afgh
an p
olice
and
his
esca
pe fr
om p
rison
tha
t the
inte
rvie
ws
wer
e he
ld w
ith th
e as
sista
nce
of a
n in
terp
rete
r to
and
from
Pas
hto
and
that
the
com
plai
nant
trie
d to
clar
ify h
is statem
entsfo
llowingqu
estio
nsduringtheBo
ardhe
aringThe
Com
mitteealso
notesth
aton10 Janu
ary2011
anddu
ringtheBo
ardhe
aringof17 Janu
ary2011the
complainantre
questedaspecialized
med
icalexamination
and
argu
ed th
at h
e la
cked
fina
ncia
l mea
ns to
pay
for a
n ex
amin
atio
n hi
mse
lf T
he C
omm
ittee
furt
her o
bser
ves
that
the
com
plai
nant
rsquos al
lega
tion
that
he
show
ed to
the
Boar
d se
quel
ae o
f the
vio
lenc
e in
flict
ed b
y th
e Af
ghan
au
thor
ities
on
his h
ands
and
one
leg
or fo
ot w
as n
ot co
ntes
ted
by th
e St
ate
part
y Th
e Co
mm
ittee
cons
ider
s th
at a
lthou
gh it
is fo
r the
com
plai
nant
to e
stab
lish
a pr
ima
facie
case
to re
ques
t for
asy
lum
it d
oes n
ot e
xem
pt
the
Stat
e pa
rty
from
mak
ing
subs
tant
ial e
ffort
s to
dete
rmin
e w
heth
er th
ere
are
grou
nds f
or b
elie
ving
that
the
com
plai
nant
wou
ld b
e in
dan
ger o
f bei
ng su
bjec
ted
to to
rtur
e if
retu
rned
In
the
circu
mst
ance
s th
e Co
mm
ittee
co
nsid
ers t
hat t
he co
mpl
aina
nt p
rovi
ded
the
Stat
e pa
rtyrsquos
aut
horit
ies w
ith su
fficie
nt m
ater
ial s
uppo
rtin
g hi
s cla
ims o
f hav
ing
been
subj
ecte
d to
tort
ure
inclu
ding
two
med
ical m
emor
anda
to
seek
furt
her i
nves
tigat
ion
on th
e cla
ims t
hrou
gh i
nter
alia
a sp
ecia
lized
med
ical e
xam
inat
ion
The
refo
re t
he C
omm
ittee
conc
lude
s tha
t by
reje
ctin
g th
e co
mpl
aina
ntrsquos
asyl
um re
ques
t with
out s
eeki
ng fu
rthe
r inv
estig
atio
n on
his
claim
s or o
rder
ing
a m
edica
l exa
min
atio
n th
e St
ate
part
y ha
s fai
led
to d
eter
min
e w
heth
er th
ere
are
subs
tant
ial g
roun
ds fo
r be
lievi
ng th
at th
e co
mpl
aina
nt w
ould
be
in d
ange
r of b
eing
subj
ecte
d to
tort
ure
if re
turn
ed A
ccor
ding
ly th
e Co
mm
ittee
conc
lude
s tha
t in
the
circu
mst
ance
s th
e de
porta
tion
of th
e co
mpl
aina
nt to
his
coun
try
of o
rigin
w
ould
cons
titut
e a
viol
atio
n of
art
icle
3 of
the
Conv
entio
nrsquo
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 141
Com
mitt
eeCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
dat
eRe
leva
nce
keyw
ords
key
rele
vant
par
agra
phs
Case
s cite
d
Hum
an
Righ
ts
Com
mitt
ee
Razi
yeh
Reza
ifar
v De
nmar
k
CCPR
C
119
D25
122
014
100
320
17
View
s ado
pted
by
the
Com
mitt
ee u
nder
art
icle
5 (4
) of t
he O
ptio
nal P
roto
col
conc
erni
ng c
omm
unic
atio
n no
251
220
14
Depo
rtat
ion
to It
aly
- Tor
ture
cru
el i
nhum
an o
r deg
radi
ng tr
eatm
ent o
r pun
ishm
ent
Para
89
lsquo89
The
Com
mitt
ee re
calls
that
Sta
tes p
artie
s sho
uld
give
suffi
cien
t wei
ght t
o th
e re
al a
nd p
erso
nal r
isk
a pe
rson
mig
ht fa
ce if
dep
orte
d and
cons
ider
s tha
t it w
as in
cum
bent
upo
n th
e St
ate
part
y to
und
erta
ke
an in
divi
dual
ized
asse
ssm
ent o
f the
risk
that
the
auth
or a
nd h
er tw
o ch
ildre
n (b
oth
of w
hom
wer
e m
inor
dur
ing
the
asyl
um p
roce
edin
gs) w
ould
face
in It
aly
rath
er th
an re
ly o
n ge
nera
l rep
orts
and
on
the
assu
mpt
ion
that
as t
he a
utho
r had
ben
efite
d fr
om su
bsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
in th
e pa
st s
he w
ould
in
prin
cipl
e b
e en
title
d to
the
sam
e le
vel o
f sub
sidia
ry p
rote
ctio
n to
day
The
Com
mitt
ee c
onsid
ers t
hat t
he
Stat
e pa
rty
faile
d to
take
into
due
con
sider
atio
n th
e sp
ecia
l vul
nera
bilit
y of
the
auth
or a
nd h
er c
hild
ren
N
otw
ithst
andi
ng h
er fo
rmal
ent
itlem
ent t
o su
bsid
iary
pro
tect
ion
in It
aly
the
auth
or w
ho h
as b
een
seve
rely
mist
reat
ed b
y he
r spo
use
face
d gr
eat p
reca
rity
and
was
not
abl
e to
pro
vide
for h
erse
lf an
d he
r ch
ildre
n in
clud
ing
for t
heir
med
ical
nee
ds i
n th
e ab
senc
e of
any
ass
istan
ce fr
om th
e Ita
lian
auth
oriti
es
The
Stat
e pa
rty
has a
lso fa
iled
to se
ek e
ffect
ive
assu
ranc
es fr
om th
e Ita
lian
auth
oriti
es th
at th
e au
thor
an
d he
r tw
o ch
ildre
n w
ho a
re in
a p
artic
ular
ly v
ulne
rabl
e sit
uatio
n an
alog
ous t
o th
at e
ncou
nter
ed b
y th
e au
thor
in Ja
sin v
Den
mar
k (w
hich
also
invo
lved
the
plan
ned
depo
rtat
ion
of a
n un
heal
thy
singl
e m
othe
r w
ith m
inor
chi
ldre
n w
ho h
ad a
lread
y ex
perie
nced
ext
rem
e ha
rdsh
ip a
nd d
estit
utio
n in
Ital
y) w
ould
be
rece
ived
in c
ondi
tions
com
patib
le w
ith th
eir s
tatu
s as a
sylu
m se
eker
s ent
itled
to te
mpo
rary
pro
tect
ion
and
the
guar
ante
es u
nder
art
icle
7 o
f the
Cov
enan
t In
par
ticul
ar t
he S
tate
par
ty fa
iled
to re
ques
t Ita
ly
to u
nder
take
(a) t
o re
new
the
auth
orrsquos
resid
ence
per
mit
and
to is
sue
perm
its to
her
chi
ldre
n a
nd (b
) to
rece
ive
the
auth
or a
nd h
er c
hild
ren
in c
ondi
tions
ada
pted
to th
e ch
ildre
nrsquos a
ge a
nd th
e fa
mily
rsquos vu
lner
able
st
atus
whi
ch w
ould
ena
ble
them
to re
mai
n in
Ital
yrsquo
ECtH
R M
SS v
Bel
gium
an
d Gr
eece
[GC
] no
306
9609
21 Ja
nuary20
11
ECtH
R M
oham
med
Hu
ssei
n an
d O
ther
s v
the
Net
herla
nds
and
Italy
(dec
) no
277
25102 April
2013
ECtH
R Ta
rakh
el
v Sw
itzer
land
[GC]
no
292
171
2
4 Novem
ber2
014
Ms O
bah
Huss
ein
Ahm
ed v
Den
mar
k
no 237
920
147
July
2016
RAA
and
ZM
v De
nmar
k
no 260
820
15
28 Octob
er201
6
142 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Com
mitt
eeCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
dat
eRe
leva
nce
keyw
ords
key
rele
vant
par
agra
phs
Case
s cite
d
X v
Denm
ark
no
200
720
10
26 M
arch201
4
ARJ v
Aus
tral
ia
no 692
199
628 July
1997
X v
Swed
en
no 183
320
08
1 Novem
ber2
011
Lin
v Au
stra
lia
no 195
720
10
21 M
arch201
3
Erro
l Sim
ms v
Jam
aica
no
541
199
33 April
1995
War
da O
sman
Ja
sin v
Den
mar
k
no 236
020
142
2 July
2015
Abdi
lafir
Abu
baka
r Al
i et a
l v D
enm
ark
no
240
920
14
29 M
arch201
6
Pilla
i v C
anad
a
no 176
320
08
25 M
arch201
1
Oba
h Hu
ssei
n Ah
med
v D
enm
ark
no
237
920
147
July
2016
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 143
Com
mitt
eeCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
dat
eRe
leva
nce
keyw
ords
key
rele
vant
par
agra
phs
Case
s cite
d
Com
mitt
ee
on th
e Ri
ghts
of
the
Child
NBF
v S
pain
CRC
C79
D1
120
17
270
920
18
View
s ado
pted
by
the
Com
mitt
ee u
nder
the
Opt
iona
l Pro
toco
l to
the
Conv
entio
n on
the
Righ
ts o
f the
Chi
ld o
n acommun
icatio
nsprocedu
recon
cerningcommun
icatio
nno
112017
Dete
rmin
atio
n of
the
age
of a
n al
lege
d un
acco
mpa
nied
min
or -
Non-
exha
ustio
n of
dom
estic
rem
edie
s ab
use
of
the
right
of s
ubm
issio
n la
ck o
f sub
stan
tiatio
n of
the
com
plai
nt
Para
12
6
lsquo12
6 T
he S
tate
par
ty h
as ci
ted
the
case
of M
EB
v S
pain
as a
pre
cede
nt fo
r rel
ying
on
X-ra
y ev
iden
ce b
ased
on
the
Greu
lich
and
Pyle
atla
s Th
e Co
mm
ittee
not
es h
owev
er t
hat t
here
is a
mpl
e in
form
atio
n in
the
file
to
sugg
est t
hat t
his m
etho
d la
cks p
recis
ion
and
has a
wid
e m
argi
n of
err
or a
nd is
ther
efor
e no
t sui
tabl
e fo
r use
as
the
sole
met
hod
for d
eter
min
ing
the
chro
nolo
gica
l age
of a
youn
g pe
rson
who
clai
ms t
o be
a m
inor
rsquo
ECtH
R A
hmad
e v
Gree
cen
o 50
52009
25
Sep
tembe
r201
2
MEB
v S
pain
no
9201
72 Ju
ne201
7
RL v
Spa
inn
o 18
201
7
25 Ja
nuary20
18
Com
mitt
ee
Agai
nst
Tort
ure
Adam
Har
un
v Sw
itzer
land
CAT
C65
D7
582
016
061
220
18
Deci
sion
adop
ted
by th
e Co
mm
ittee
und
er a
rtic
le 2
2 of
the
Conv
entio
n c
once
rnin
g co
mm
unic
atio
n no
758
201
6
Depo
rtat
ion
to It
aly
- Fai
lure
to su
ffici
ently
subs
tant
iate
cla
ims
inad
miss
ibili
ty ra
tione
mat
eria
e - R
isk o
f to
rtur
e ri
ght t
o re
dres
s c
ruel
inh
uman
or d
egra
ding
trea
tmen
t or p
unish
men
t
Para
91
1
lsquo91
1 T
he C
omm
ittee
also
not
es th
at th
e St
ate
part
y w
ithou
t hav
ing
anal
ysed
the
com
plai
nant
rsquos ex
perie
nce
in It
aly
to d
ate
sim
ply
stat
ed th
at It
aly
had
alre
ady
agre
ed to
read
mit
him
on
thre
e se
para
te
occa
sions
and
con
sider
ed th
at i
f nee
d be
the
com
plai
nant
cou
ld fi
le a
com
plai
nt a
gain
st th
e re
ceiv
ing
Stat
e in
the
even
t of v
iola
tion
of h
is rig
hts
In a
dditi
on t
he C
omm
ittee
not
es th
at a
t no
time
did
the
Stat
e pa
rty
take
acc
ount
of t
he fa
ct th
at It
aly
had
faile
d to
del
iver
on
the
assu
ranc
es th
at it
had
giv
en to
N
orw
ay w
hen
the
com
plai
nant
retu
rned
to th
e co
untr
y in
201
2 an
d th
at it
had
not
take
n an
y m
easu
res
to g
uara
ntee
him
acc
ess t
o re
habi
litat
ion
serv
ices
that
are
tailo
red
to h
is ne
eds
whi
ch w
ould
allo
w
him
to e
xerc
ise h
is rig
ht to
reha
bilit
atio
n as
a v
ictim
of t
ortu
re I
n lig
ht o
f the
fore
goin
g th
e Co
mm
ittee
co
nsid
ers t
hat t
he S
tate
par
ty h
as n
ot e
xam
ined
in a
n in
divi
dual
ized
and
suffi
cien
tly th
orou
gh m
anne
r the
co
mpl
aina
ntrsquos
pers
onal
exp
erie
nce
as a
vic
tim o
f tor
ture
and
the
fore
seea
ble
cons
eque
nces
of h
is fo
rced
re
turn
to It
aly
The
Com
mitt
ee is
ther
efor
e of
the
view
that
the
depo
rtat
ion
of th
e co
mpl
aina
nt to
Ital
y w
ould
con
stitu
te a
vio
latio
n of
art
icle
3 o
f the
Con
vent
ion
rsquo
ECtH
R Ta
rakh
el
v Sw
itzer
land
[GC]
no
292
171
2
4 Novem
ber2
014
ECtH
R N
v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m [G
C]
no 265
650527 May
2008
ECtH
R D
v U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
mn
o 30
24096
2 May199
7
ECtH
R M
SS v
Bel
gium
an
d Gr
eece
[GC
] no
306
9609
21 Ja
nuary20
11
ECtH
R M
oham
med
Hu
ssei
n an
d O
ther
s v
the
Net
herla
nds
and
Italy
(dec
) no
277
25102 April
2013
144 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Com
mitt
eeCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
dat
eRe
leva
nce
keyw
ords
key
rele
vant
par
agra
phs
Case
s cite
d
ECtH
R A
S v
Switz
erla
nd
no 393
501330 June
20
15
ECtH
R N
aiumlt-L
iman
v
Switz
erla
nd
no 513
570721 June
20
16
ECtH
R P
apos
hvili
v
Belg
ium
no
417
3810
13 Decem
ber2
016
ECtH
R S
aadi
v It
aly
[GC]n
o 37
20106
28
Feb
ruary20
08
ECtH
R R
amzy
v
the
Net
herla
nds
no
254
240520 July
2010
CJEU
CK
and
Oth
ers
v Re
publ
ika
Slov
enija
C-
578
16 P
PU
16 Feb
ruary20
17
Hum
an R
ight
s Co
mm
ittee
W
arda
Osm
an
Jasin
v D
enm
ark
no
236
020
142
2 July
2015
CJ-Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection mdash 145
Com
mitt
eeCa
se n
ame
re
fere
nce
dat
eRe
leva
nce
keyw
ords
key
rele
vant
par
agra
phs
Case
s cite
d
MM
K v
Swed
en
22120
023
May200
5
YGH
et a
l v A
ustr
alia
no
434
201
0
14 Novem
ber2
013
JB v
Sw
itzer
land
no
721
201
5
17 Novem
ber2
017
AN v
Sw
itzer
land
no
742
201
63Aug
ust
2018
146 mdash CJ - Vulnerability in the context of applications for international protection
Case law websites for European institutions and Member StatesBelow is a list of the main websites with case-law on asylum and migration law for European institutions and EU Member States
bull Court of Justice of the European Union httpcuriaeuropaeujurisrecherchejsflanguage=enbull European Court of Human Rights httpshudocechrcoeintengbull EASO Information and Documentation System on Case Law httpscaselaweasoeuropaeuPages
defaultaspxbull UNHCR Refworld httpswwwrefworldorgcgi-bintexisvtxrwmain with advanced search at https
wwwrefworldorgcgi-bintexisvtxrwmainpage=searchampadvsearch=yampprocess=nbull Jurisprudence of the UN human rights bodies httpsjurisohchrorgsearchDocumentsbull European Council on Refugees and Exiles European Database of Asylum Law httpswww
asylumlawdatabaseeuenbull The European Commission maintains a list of links to national case-law sites at httpsbetae-justice
europaeu13ENnational_case_law
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU
In personAll over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres You can find the address of the centre nearest you at httpeuropaeucontact
On the phone or by emailEurope Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union You can contact this service ndash by freephone 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls)ndash at the following standard number +32 22999696 orndash by email via httpeuropaeucontact
FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU
OnlineInformation about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website at httpeuropaeu
EU publicationsYou can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop at httppublicationseuropaeu eubookshop Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see httpeuropaeucontact)
EU law and related documentsFor access to legal information from the EU including all EU law since 1952 in all the official language versions go to EUR-Lex at httpeur-lexeuropaeu
Open data from the EUThe EU Open Data Portal (httpdataeuropaeueuodp) provides access to datasets from the EU Data can be downloaded and reused for free both for commercial and non-commercial purposes