Case summaries

According to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia the general credibility of the Applicant is an internationally recognised standard that takes into account numerous conditions when assessing the Applicant’s level of credibility, who does not have any material evidence to prove his persecution. However, the Applicant’s general credibility will provide the necessary trust in his statement as regards his persecution for the state to grant him international protection even without any material or other evidence, merely on the basis of his statements. 

The Appellant should have demanded for an expert to be appointed already during the administrative procedure, at the very latest during the appeal. According to the Supreme Court the objection that a psychiatric expert was not appointed represents an impermissible appeal novelty. The Supreme Court also added that the psychological health of the parties in court procedures is assumed as a fact. 

The procedure of the Court did not include decisive evidence for an assessment of whether, as a ground for revoking protection status, the complainant represented a danger to the security of the Slovak Republic, thereby infringing the complainant’s right to respond to all of the evidence, under Article 48(2) of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic and under Article 38(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms in conjunction with Article 13(4) of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic and Article 4(4) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. The basis on which the competent authorities reach a decision must be clear from the administrative authority’s file and from the court file, even where no explicit reason is provided in the statement of reasons for their decision.

In this case the Tribunal considered the general country situation in Somalia as at the date of decision for five applicants, both men and women from Mogadishu, south or central Somalia, Somaliland and Puntland. The risk of female genital mutilation (FGM) was also considered.

This case concerned the approach to be taken with evidence from witnesses. The CALL ruled that a witness statement from a private source cannot be automatically disregarded. The authority in charge of examining an application should examine whether the author of a witness statement can be identified, whether its content can be verified, and whether the information contained therein is sufficiently precise and coherent to usefully contribute to the assessment of the facts of the case.

This case concerned exclusion and confirmed that Art 12.2 of the Qualification Directive, should be interpreted so that the determining authority must perform an individual examination of the applicant’s case and assess the individual responsibility according to the objective and subjective criteria, as set out in the judgment of Germany v B and D.  In such cases, the burden of proof does not rest with the applicant but on the determining authority.

The Iranian applicants’ asylum claim was rejected by the authorities as they were not found credible. As a result of this finding, the authorities did not consider their account in light of the country of origin information on Iran. The court quashed the decision and granted refugee status to the family reasoning that the authorities are obliged to carry out a thorough and complete fact assessment.

It was found that the contradictions in the applicants' account were not relevant from the point of view of international protection. The court also ruled that the authority is obliged to clarify misunderstandings at hearings, at the same time applicants have to be given the opportunity to justify contradictions and incoherencies in their statements.

The CALL considered that the internal protection alternative rule limits access to international protection and found that, in order for the rule to be applied, it is up to the asylum authority to demonstrate (1) that there is a part of the country of origin where the applicant has no reason to fear persecution and runs no real risk of serious harm, and (2) that it could be reasonably expected of the applicant to stay in that part of the country (taking into account the general circumstances in the country and the personal circumstances of the applicant).

This case examined the compatibility of the Dublin II Regulation with the European Convention on Human Rights regarding transfers to Greece under the Dublin II Regulation. The Court found that there was a violation of Article 3 ECHR by the Greece Government because of the applicant’s conditions of detention, violation of Article 3 ECHR by Greece concerning the applicant’s living conditions in Greece, violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3 ECHR against Greece because of the deficiencies in the asylum procedure followed in the applicant’s case and the risk of his expulsion to Afghanistan without any serious examination of the merits of his asylum application and without any access to an effective remedy. The Court also found in relation to Belgium that there was a violation of Article 3 by sending the applicant back to Greece and exposing him to risks linked to the deficiencies in the asylum procedure in that State, also held against Belgium a violation of Article 3 for sending him to Greece and exposing him to detention and living conditions there that were in breach of that ECHR article. The Court also found a violation of Article 13 ECHR taking in conjunction with Article 3 ECHR against Belgium.

When medico-legal evidence of torture is provided by specialists and found credible it is incumbent on the Migration Board to put forward evidence that there is no further risk of torture in the relevant country. 

The existence of a risk of persecution in the country of origin should be assessed on the basis of information concerning the country of origin rather than on the basis of the credibility of the asylum seeker.