Case summaries
This case examines the differences between the procedure for examining a claim for asylum and the procedure for examining the application of exclusion clauses.
The asylum procedure is a specific procedure as the applicants do not have knowledge of the Czech language. If an applicant submits documents in a language other than Czech it must be considered if it is the applicant or the Ministry of Interior who is responsible for providing a translation.
Honour-related violence should be examined in the context of grounds for protection and not humanitarian considerations. The Migration Court of Appeal also discussed the application of the benefit of the doubt.
Exclusion from refugee status under Section 60 (8) (2) Residence Act/Art. 12.2 and Art. 12.3 of the Qualification Directive is only justified if the person concerned poses an ongoing threat.
Traumatised people and those who have suffered otherwise psychologically and physically from flight behave differently when giving evidence compared with healthy people. This can mean that the full submissions relevant to asylum are not provided at the start of the proceedings or the traumatisation itself is not mentioned. These circumstances are to be taken into account during the ban on new evidence.
Exclusion from refugee status on the grounds of serious non-political crimes is only permissible if the applicant still poses a threat. The Court found that an applicant from Turkey, who had been subject to past persecution, was not sufficiently safe from renewed persecution if returned.
For the purposes of assessing whether a child is a member of a particular social group, a person's age is an immutable characteristic.
Where reports from applicant’s country of origin establish that the minority group to which the applicant belongs is a target of discrimination and persecution from the authorities and police, the applicant’s claim cannot be refused on the grounds that he/she had not asked the authorities for protection and failed to exhaust all legal means available.
In order to assess the persecution fears of a person in case of return to his/her country of origin, concrete modes in which such a return will most likely take place must be taken into consideration.
This case concerns how internal protection alternatives should be assessed when identifying whether there is a real risk of a violation of Art. 3 ECHR in the country of origin. It also concerns generalized violence and an individual assessment of risk in Somalia. The Court held that the Applicant’s expulsion to Somalia would be in violation of Art. 3 of the Convention and that there was no violation of Art. 13.