150
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

Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    1

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context

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

  • Compilation of jurisprudence ndash explanatory note
  • Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)
    • Elgafaji v Staatssecretaris van Justitie
    • Samba Diouf v Ministre du Travail de lrsquoEmploi et de lrsquoImmigration
    • NS v Secretary of State for the Home Department and ME and Others v Refugee Applications Commissioner and Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform
    • Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Y and Z
    • Cimade and Groupe drsquoinformation et de soutien des immigreacutes (GISTI) v Ministre de lrsquointeacuterieur de lrsquooutre-mer des collectiviteacutes territoriales et de lrsquoimmigration
    • The Queen on the application of MA and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel v X Y and Z v Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel
    • Federal agentshap voor de opvang van asielzoekers v Selver Saciri Danijela Dordevic Danjel Saciri Sanela Saciri Denis Saciri Openbaar Centrum voor Maatschappelijk Welzijn van Diest
    • A B and C v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
    • Khaled Boudjlida v Preacutefet des Pyreacuteneacutees-Atlantiques
    • Mohamed MrsquoBodj v Eacutetat belge
    • Mehrdad Ghezelbash v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
    • M v Minister for Justice and Equality Ireland and the Attorney General
    • CK and Others v Republika Slovenija
    • Moussa Sacko v Commissione Territoriale per il riconoscimento della protezione internazionale di Milano
    • F v Bevaacutendorlaacutesi eacutes Aacutellampolgaacutersaacutegi Hivatal
    • A and S v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
    • MP v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • Serin Alheto v Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite
    • Ahmedbekova
    • Ayubi v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Linz-Land
    • MA and Others v International Protection Appeal Tribunal and Others
    • E v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
    • Abubacarr Jawo gegen Bundesrepublik Deutschland
    • Bashar Ibrahim and Others v Bundesrepublik Deutschland and Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Taus Magamadov
    • SM v Entry Clearance Officer UK Visa Section
    • Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie v H and R
    • Mohammed Bilali v Bundesamt fuumlr Fremdenwesen und Asyl
    • Zubar Haqbin v Federaal Agentschap voor de opvang van asielzoekers
      • Advocate General (AG) Opinion
        • A B and C v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
          • European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
            • Airey v Ireland
            • D v United Kingdom
            • Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v Belgium
            • Salah Sheekh v the Netherlands
            • N v United Kingdom
            • MSS v Belgium and Greece
            • Sufi and Elmi v United Kingdom
            • SHH v United Kingdom
            • Aden Ahmed v Malta
            • Tarakhel v Switzerland
            • Mohamad c Gregravece
            • Aarabi c Gregravece
            • Abdi Mahamud v Malta
            • JK and Others v Sweden
            • VM and Others v Belgium
            • Elmi and Abubaker v Malta
            • Paposhvili v Belgium
            • SF and Others v Bulgaria
            • Thimothawes v Belgium
            • HA et autres c Gregravece
            • Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary
              • United Nations human rights monitoring committees
                • Gbadjavi v Switzerland
                • KH v Denmark
                • Raziyeh Rezaifar v Denmark
                • NBF v Spain
                • Adam Harun v Switzerland
                  • Case law websites for European institutions and Member States
Page 2: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context

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 ndash explanatory note
  • Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)
    • Elgafaji v Staatssecretaris van Justitie
    • Samba Diouf v Ministre du Travail de lrsquoEmploi et de lrsquoImmigration
    • NS v Secretary of State for the Home Department and ME and Others v Refugee Applications Commissioner and Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform
    • Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Y and Z
    • Cimade and Groupe drsquoinformation et de soutien des immigreacutes (GISTI) v Ministre de lrsquointeacuterieur de lrsquooutre-mer des collectiviteacutes territoriales et de lrsquoimmigration
    • The Queen on the application of MA and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel v X Y and Z v Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel
    • Federal agentshap voor de opvang van asielzoekers v Selver Saciri Danijela Dordevic Danjel Saciri Sanela Saciri Denis Saciri Openbaar Centrum voor Maatschappelijk Welzijn van Diest
    • A B and C v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
    • Khaled Boudjlida v Preacutefet des Pyreacuteneacutees-Atlantiques
    • Mohamed MrsquoBodj v Eacutetat belge
    • Mehrdad Ghezelbash v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
    • M v Minister for Justice and Equality Ireland and the Attorney General
    • CK and Others v Republika Slovenija
    • Moussa Sacko v Commissione Territoriale per il riconoscimento della protezione internazionale di Milano
    • F v Bevaacutendorlaacutesi eacutes Aacutellampolgaacutersaacutegi Hivatal
    • A and S v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
    • MP v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • Serin Alheto v Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite
    • Ahmedbekova
    • Ayubi v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Linz-Land
    • MA and Others v International Protection Appeal Tribunal and Others
    • E v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
    • Abubacarr Jawo gegen Bundesrepublik Deutschland
    • Bashar Ibrahim and Others v Bundesrepublik Deutschland and Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Taus Magamadov
    • SM v Entry Clearance Officer UK Visa Section
    • Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie v H and R
    • Mohammed Bilali v Bundesamt fuumlr Fremdenwesen und Asyl
    • Zubar Haqbin v Federaal Agentschap voor de opvang van asielzoekers
      • Advocate General (AG) Opinion
        • A B and C v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
          • European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
            • Airey v Ireland
            • D v United Kingdom
            • Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v Belgium
            • Salah Sheekh v the Netherlands
            • N v United Kingdom
            • MSS v Belgium and Greece
            • Sufi and Elmi v United Kingdom
            • SHH v United Kingdom
            • Aden Ahmed v Malta
            • Tarakhel v Switzerland
            • Mohamad c Gregravece
            • Aarabi c Gregravece
            • Abdi Mahamud v Malta
            • JK and Others v Sweden
            • VM and Others v Belgium
            • Elmi and Abubaker v Malta
            • Paposhvili v Belgium
            • SF and Others v Bulgaria
            • Thimothawes v Belgium
            • HA et autres c Gregravece
            • Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary
              • United Nations human rights monitoring committees
                • Gbadjavi v Switzerland
                • KH v Denmark
                • Raziyeh Rezaifar v Denmark
                • NBF v Spain
                • Adam Harun v Switzerland
                  • Case law websites for European institutions and Member States
Page 3: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context

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 ndash explanatory note
  • Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)
    • Elgafaji v Staatssecretaris van Justitie
    • Samba Diouf v Ministre du Travail de lrsquoEmploi et de lrsquoImmigration
    • NS v Secretary of State for the Home Department and ME and Others v Refugee Applications Commissioner and Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform
    • Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Y and Z
    • Cimade and Groupe drsquoinformation et de soutien des immigreacutes (GISTI) v Ministre de lrsquointeacuterieur de lrsquooutre-mer des collectiviteacutes territoriales et de lrsquoimmigration
    • The Queen on the application of MA and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel v X Y and Z v Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel
    • Federal agentshap voor de opvang van asielzoekers v Selver Saciri Danijela Dordevic Danjel Saciri Sanela Saciri Denis Saciri Openbaar Centrum voor Maatschappelijk Welzijn van Diest
    • A B and C v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
    • Khaled Boudjlida v Preacutefet des Pyreacuteneacutees-Atlantiques
    • Mohamed MrsquoBodj v Eacutetat belge
    • Mehrdad Ghezelbash v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
    • M v Minister for Justice and Equality Ireland and the Attorney General
    • CK and Others v Republika Slovenija
    • Moussa Sacko v Commissione Territoriale per il riconoscimento della protezione internazionale di Milano
    • F v Bevaacutendorlaacutesi eacutes Aacutellampolgaacutersaacutegi Hivatal
    • A and S v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
    • MP v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • Serin Alheto v Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite
    • Ahmedbekova
    • Ayubi v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Linz-Land
    • MA and Others v International Protection Appeal Tribunal and Others
    • E v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
    • Abubacarr Jawo gegen Bundesrepublik Deutschland
    • Bashar Ibrahim and Others v Bundesrepublik Deutschland and Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Taus Magamadov
    • SM v Entry Clearance Officer UK Visa Section
    • Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie v H and R
    • Mohammed Bilali v Bundesamt fuumlr Fremdenwesen und Asyl
    • Zubar Haqbin v Federaal Agentschap voor de opvang van asielzoekers
      • Advocate General (AG) Opinion
        • A B and C v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
          • European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
            • Airey v Ireland
            • D v United Kingdom
            • Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v Belgium
            • Salah Sheekh v the Netherlands
            • N v United Kingdom
            • MSS v Belgium and Greece
            • Sufi and Elmi v United Kingdom
            • SHH v United Kingdom
            • Aden Ahmed v Malta
            • Tarakhel v Switzerland
            • Mohamad c Gregravece
            • Aarabi c Gregravece
            • Abdi Mahamud v Malta
            • JK and Others v Sweden
            • VM and Others v Belgium
            • Elmi and Abubaker v Malta
            • Paposhvili v Belgium
            • SF and Others v Bulgaria
            • Thimothawes v Belgium
            • HA et autres c Gregravece
            • Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary
              • United Nations human rights monitoring committees
                • Gbadjavi v Switzerland
                • KH v Denmark
                • Raziyeh Rezaifar v Denmark
                • NBF v Spain
                • Adam Harun v Switzerland
                  • Case law websites for European institutions and Member States
Page 4: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 5: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 6: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 7: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 8: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 9: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 10: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 11: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 12: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 13: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 14: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 15: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 16: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 17: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 18: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 19: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 20: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 21: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 22: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 23: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 24: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 25: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 26: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 27: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 28: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 29: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 30: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 31: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 32: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 33: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 34: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 35: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 36: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 37: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 38: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 39: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 40: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 41: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 42: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 43: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 44: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 45: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 46: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 47: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 48: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 49: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 50: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 51: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 52: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 53: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 54: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 55: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 56: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 57: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 58: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 59: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 60: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 61: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 62: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 63: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 64: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 65: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 66: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 67: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 68: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 69: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 70: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 71: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 72: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 73: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 74: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 75: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 76: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 77: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 78: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 79: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 80: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 81: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 82: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 83: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 84: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 85: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 86: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 87: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 88: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 89: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 90: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 91: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 92: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 93: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 94: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 95: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 96: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 97: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 98: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 99: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 100: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 101: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 102: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 103: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 104: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 105: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 106: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 107: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 108: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 109: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 110: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 111: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 112: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 113: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 114: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 115: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 116: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 117: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 118: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 119: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 120: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 121: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 122: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 123: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 124: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 125: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 126: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 127: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 128: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 129: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 130: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 131: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 132: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 133: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 134: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 135: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 136: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 137: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 138: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 139: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 140: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 141: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 142: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 143: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 144: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 145: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 146: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 147: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 148: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 149: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context
Page 150: Compilation of jurisprudence: Vulnerability in the context