Case summaries
Where an applicant's account is rejected as incredible, his or her claim will only succeed where there is undisputed objective evidence which goes a long way towards showing that the applicant is nonetheless a member of a group that is at risk. The weight to be given to lies is fact sensitive and dependent on the relevance of the lie to the central issue in the appeal.
In this case the court considered the risk to a refugee of indirect refoulement from a third country.
The Ethiopian applicant was a victim of sexual violence and suffered from serious post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Her claim was rejected based on credibility concerns. The court ruled that the asylum authority failed to assess the facts of the case in a proper manner by applying inappropriate interview techniques and wrongly concluded that the applicant did not substantiate her well-founded fear of persecution.
The CALL ruled that it is an applicant’s obligation to give as complete a picture as possible of their profile and past, including the countries and places of previous residence, in order to allow an assessment of the need for subsidiary protection. In the case of a stay/residence of many years outside his/her country of origin, it cannot be ruled out that the applicant has citizenship in a third country and that protection in Belgium is not needed.
In a decision on whether the return of an unaccompanied minor to Hungary under the Dublin Regulation is unlawful in light of Art. 3 ECHR and therefore the sovereignty clause should be used, Art. 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union(CFRU – best interest of the child as a primary consideration for authorities) is significant.
Political persecution can also exist when legally adopted criminal sanctions are imposed following standard legal proceedings against someone who has simply expressed political opinions. On the other hand, repressive measures with criminal sanctions against incitement to violence cannot be considered to be persecution.
This case concerned risk upon return to Iran in a situation where a person has previously been detained and tortured there and had supporting medical evidence. The Court found a violation of Art. 3 ECHR if the Applicant were to be deported to Iran.