Case summaries

  • My search
  • Keywords
    1
Reset
Poland - Polish Refugee Board, 28 August 2013, RdU-310-1/S/13
Country of applicant: Russia

A bad situation in the country of origin does not constitute a sufficient intrinsic reason to accord refugee status or other forms of protection.

One cannot question the credibility of an applicant solely on the basis of a discrepancy between the information stated in the application and the information provided in subsequent stages of the proceedings.

Date of decision: 28-08-2013
Germany - Administrative Court Gießen, 11 July 2013, 5 K 1316/12.GI.A
Country of applicant: Pakistan

Ahmadis, for whom the practise and possibly also the promotion of their faith in public are elements which define their identity and as such are essential, are very likely to be at risk of political persecution in Pakistan. The “relationship consideration” demanded by the Federal Administrative Court, whereby the number of members of a particular group is compared with the number of actual threatening acts of persecution, seems virtually impossible in this case.

Date of decision: 11-07-2013
ECtHR - H. and B. v. the United Kingdom, Application No. 70073/10 and 44539/11
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

On the basis of the general situation in Afghanistan and the lack of cogent reasons to depart from the findings of fact of national courts, the applicants would not be at risk of treatment contrary to 3 ECHR if returned from the UK to Kabul (Afghanistan)

Date of decision: 09-07-2013
Poland - Regional Administrative Court in Warsaw, 16 May 2013, IV SA/Wa 2684/12

A foreigner shall cease to be eligible for subsidiary protection when the circumstances which led to the granting of subsidiary protection status have ceased to exist or have changed to such a degree that protection is no longer required. The relevant provision refers to two separate reasons that justify revoking subsidiary protection. The first is that the circumstances which led to the granting of such protection have ceased to exist. The second is that those circumstances have changed, although the change of circumstances must be of such a significant and non-temporary nature that the foreigner no longer faces a real risk of serious harm.

Subsidiary protection cannot establish a right that is comparable to, for instance, the right to obtain permission for temporary stay or indefinite leave to remain.

Date of decision: 16-05-2013
Greece - Athens Court of Appeal, 25 April 2013, Application No. 57/2013
Country of applicant: Turkey

Application from the Turkish Authorities to have the Greek Judicial Authorities issue an extradition notice against A.F., a Turkish citizen seeking asylum in Greece.

The Court ruled against the Turkish Authorities' extradition request, deciding that if the person in question were extradited to Turkey there would be a risk that her situation would be made worse because of her political beliefs and because of her pending application to have her refugee status recognised by the Greek state.

Date of decision: 25-04-2013
Belgium - Council for Alien Law Litigation, 24 April 2013, No. 101488
Country of applicant: Senegal

The CALL ruled that the discrimination or ill treatment suffered by homosexuals in Senegal did not amount to all homosexuals of Senegalese origin having reason to fear persecution in Senegal on the sole basis of their sexual orientation.   

Date of decision: 24-04-2013
ECtHR - I.K. v Austria, Application No. 2964/12
Country of applicant: Russia (Chechnya)

The case concerns the examination of an asylum claim by the Austrian authorities and assessment of a real risk that the applicant would be subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR if expelled to Russia. 

Date of decision: 28-03-2013
ECtHR- Singh and Others v. Belgium, Application no. 33210/11, 2 January 2013
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

The case examined the allegations of the applicants that their deportation to Moscow will entail a real risk of refoulement to Afghanistan where they fear treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.  Further, it examined the applicants’ complaints of a violation of their right to an effective remedy in conjunction with Article 3, invoking Article 13 of the Convention.

Date of decision: 02-01-2013
ECtHR- Labsi v. Slovakia, Application no. 33809/08, 24 September 2012
Country of applicant: Algeria

The European Court of Human Rights held that the expulsion of an Algerian national from Slovakia to Algeria, in contempt of an interim measure issued by the Court, was in violation of Articles 3, 13 and 34 of the Convention.

Date of decision: 24-09-2012
Poland - Regional Administrative Court in Warsaw, 8 August 2012, V SA/Wa 621/12
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

The notion of “well-founded fear” has not been precisely defined. However, it is commonly accepted that it must necessarily contain two elements: a subjective element (the party has a real and credible fear of persecution) and an objective element (this fear has a basis in reality).  A person applying for refugee status should present facts and possibly evidence confirming that they were persecuted in the past or that they fear persecution upon returning to their country of origin. Other reasons for a foreigner leaving their country of origin or fearing a return to their country of origin are immaterial as regards recognition of their refugee status.

Date of decision: 08-08-2012