Case summaries

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.

The International Protection Act's (ZMZ) definition of family members is not inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia nor with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights  (ECHR).

The ZMZ does not give the body that decides on international protection the discretion to broaden the circle of family members in special circumstances, nor are such obligations or discretions given by EU legislation or the ECHR.

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)

General information about the country of origin indicating that returning refugees (in Kabul) often end up subjected to degrading conditions must be taken into consideration in determining the reasonableness of an internal protection alternative (IPA). If not, then the constitutional, judicial obligation to give reasons is breached. 

The Applicant challenged the first instance decision and was granted refugee status on the basis of a fear of persecution on grounds of his imputed political opinion, which was not identified by the asylum authority (OIN). The asylum authority considered Kabul as an alternative for internal protection, which was rejected by the Court since the Applicant had no family ties and employment in Kabul, which is getting overpopulated and residents are threatened by terrorist attacks.

A Russian Federation citizen, originally from Chechnya, had applied for international protection in Finland due to threat of persecution based on his/her family’s political activities. The Applicant had been diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder because of torture. According to the Immigration Service, he/she could resort to internal relocation as specified in Section 88e of the Aliens Act and there were no grounds for granting international protection. The Administrative Court rejected the appeal. The Supreme Administrative Court took the view that the Applicant has had close ties to the Komi Republic and had no problems with the authorities while living there. Therefore he/she can be expected to rely on internal relocation to another part of the country, as specified in Article 88e of the Aliens Act and he/she was not in need of international protection.

The Court stated that the applicant’s fear of persecution and serious threat, related to assaults by her former spouse  are unfounded because the Court believes that the applicant has a reasonable possibility of internal asylum in another part of her country of origin. Consequently, the Court rejected the applicant’s appeal  against the Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) decision refusing the grant of international protection).

The case refers to an administrative appeal before the Supreme Court brought by the Appellant against the High National Court’s judgment denying the right to asylum and subsidiary protection.

The Appellant is a Cameroonian national.In the application he claims to be a minor and that the grounds for persecution was his sexual orientation.

The Supreme Court upheld the appeal and reversed the challenged judgment.Furthermore the Court ordered a reconsideration of the administrative procedure from the beginning, in order to provide the asylum seeker with legal assistance.

Applications for leave to remain were rejected as the Applicant had already been granted refugee status in another EU state. No grounds supporting an examination of the asylum applications in Sweden emerged in the case.

Instead of non-refoulement, the Court granted the Applicant subsidiary protection status because he would be at risk of serious harm upon returning to his home country (torture, cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment).