ECtHR – M. K. v France, Application No. 76100/13, 1 September 2015
| Country of applicant: | Algeria |
| Court name: | European Court of Human Rights |
| Date of decision: | 01-09-2015 |
| Citation: | Application No. 76100/13 |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
{ return; } );"
>
Description
A form of serious harm for the purposes of the granting of subsidiary protection. The Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in Celibici defined cruel or inhuman treatment as ‘an intentional act or omission, that is an act which, judged objectively, is deliberate and not accidental, that causes serious mental or physical suffering or injury or constitutes a serious attack on human dignity.’ “Ill-treatment means all forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including corporal punishment, which deprives the individual of its physical and mental integrity." |
|
Manifestly unfounded application
{ return; } );"
>
Description
Member States may consider an application for protection as manifestly unfounded, where it is defined as such in the national legislation, and: (a) the applicant clearly does not qualify as a refugee or for refugee status in a Member State under Directive 2004/83/EC; or (b) in cases of unfounded applications for asylum where any of these circumstances apply: - the applicant, in submitting his/her application and presenting the facts, has only raised issues that are not relevant or of minimal relevance to the examination of whether he/she qualifies as a refugee by virtue of Directive 2004/83/EC; or - the application is considered to be unfounded because the applicant is from a safe country of origin within the meaning of Articles 29, 30 and 31, or - the application is considered to be unfounded because the country which is not a Member State, is considered to be a safe third country for the applicant, without prejudice to Article 28(1);or - the applicant has misled the authorities by presenting false information or documents or by withholding relevant information or documents with respect to his/her identity and/or nationality that could have had a negative impact on the decision; or - the applicant has filed another application for asylum stating other personal data; or - the applicant has not produced information establishing with a reasonable degree of certainty his/her identity or nationality, or it is likely that, in bad faith, he/she has destroyed or disposed of an identity or travel document that would have helped establish his/her identity or nationality; or - the applicant has made inconsistent, contradictory, improbable or insufficient representations which make his/her claim clearly unconvincing in relation to his/her having been the object of persecution referred to in Directive 2004/83/EC; or - the applicant has submitted a subsequent application which does not raise any relevant new elements with respect to his/her particular circumstances or to the situation in his/her country of origin; or - the applicant has failed without reasonable cause to make his/her application earlier, having had opportunity to do so; or - the applicant is making an application merely in order to delay or frustrate the enforcement of an earlier or imminent decision which would result in his/her removal; or - the applicant has failed without good reason to comply with obligations referred to in Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/83/EC or in Articles 11(2)(a) and (b) and 20(1)of this Directive; or - the applicant entered the territory of the Member State unlawfully or prolonged his/her stay unlawfully and, without good reason, has either not presented himself/herself to the authorities and/or filed an application for asylum as soon as possible, given the circumstances of his/her entry; or - the applicant is a danger to the national security or public order of the Member State, or the applicant has been forcibly expelled for serious reasons of public security and public order under national law; or - the applicant refuses to comply with an obligation to have his/her fingerprints taken in accordance with relevant Community and/or national legislation; or - the application was made by an unmarried minor to whom Article 6(4)(c) applies, after the application of the parents or parent responsible for the minor has been rejected and no relevant new elements were raised with respect to his/her particular circumstances or to the situation in his/her country of origin. In line with UNHCR Executive Committee Conclusion No. 30 (XXXIV) of 1983, cases that are “clearly abusive” (i.e. clearly fraudulent), or “manifestly unfounded”, (i.e. not related to the grounds for granting international protection), may be considered for accelerated procedures. Similarly appeal or review procedures may also be more simplified than those generally available in the case of other rejected asylum applications. |
|
Non-refoulement
{ return; } );"
>
Description
A core principle of international Refugee Law that prohibits States from returning refugees in any manner whatsoever to countries or territories in which their lives or freedom may be threatened. Note: The principle of non-refoulement is a part of customary international law and is therefore binding on all States, whether or not they are parties to the Geneva Convention. |
|
Non-state actors/agents of persecution
{ return; } );"
>
Description
People or entities responsible for acts or threats of persecution, which are not under the control of the government, and which may give rise to refugee status if they are facilitated, encouraged, or tolerated by the government, or if the government is unable or unwilling to provide effective protection against them. |
|
Personal circumstances of applicant
{ return; } );"
>
Description
The range of factors such as background, gender, age, and individual position which must to be taken into account in the assessment of an application for international protection per Article 4(3)(c) of the Qualification Directive. |
|
Refugee sur place
{ return; } );"
>
Description
In the EU context, a person granted refugee status based on international protection needs which arose sur place, i.e. on account of events which took place since they left their country of origin. In a global context, a person who is not a refugee when they leave their country of origin, but who becomes a refugee, that is, acquires a well-founded fear of persecution, at a later date. Synonym: Objective grounds for seeking asylum occurring after the applicant's departure from his/her country of origin Note: Refugees sur place may owe their fear of persecution to a coup d'état in their home country, or to the introduction or intensification of repressive or persecutory policies after their departure. A claim in this category may also be based on bona fide political activities, undertaken in the country of residence or refuge. |
|
Well-founded fear
{ return; } );"
>
Description
One of the central elements of the refugee definition under Article 1A ofthe1951 Refugee Convention is a “well-founded fear of persecution”: "Since fear is subjective, the definition involves a subjective element in the person applying for recognition as a refugee. Determination of refugee status will therefore primarily require an evaluation of the applicant's statements rather than a judgement on the situation prevailing in his country of origin. To the element of fear--a state of mind and a subjective condition--is added the qualification ‘well-founded’. This implies that it is not only the frame of mind of the person concerned that determines his refugee status, but that this frame of mind must be supported by an objective situation. The term ‘well-founded fear’ therefore contains a subjective and an objective element, and in determining whether well-founded fear exists, both elements must be taken into consideration." |
|
Real risk
{ return; } );"
>
Description
In order to be eligible for subsidiary protection, a third country national or stateless person must demonstrate that if returned to his or her country of origin, or in the case of a stateless person, to his or her country of former habitual residence, s/he would face a real risk of serious harm as defined in QD Art. 15 and that s/he is unable, or owing to such risk, unwilling to avail her/himself of the protection of that country. The fact that an applicant has already been subject to persecution or serious harm or to direct threats of such persecution or such harm, is a serious indication of the applicant's well-founded fear of persecution or real risk of suffering serious harm, unless there are good reasons to consider that such persecution or serious harm will not be repeated. |
Headnote:
The obligations imposed by Article 3 ECHR do not prevent contracting states from taking into account the possibility of relocation. Where appropriate, contracting states can expect an applicant to relocate to another part of his country of origin in order to avoid persecution.
Facts:
The Applicant, an Algerian national, arrived in France in 2003. He fled to Belgium in January 2007 after murdering an Algerian national on French territory. He was arrested and sent back to France, where he was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment by a decision of the Bouches-du-Rhône criminal trial court (‘cour d’assises’) given on 31 March 2009. He was then served with a deportation order on the basis that his presence on French territory constituted a serious threat to public order.
The Applicant appealed against the deportation order, claiming that it violated his rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’), but his appeal was dismissed. He also applied for asylum based on a fear of retaliation by the family members of his victim, who lived in the same neighbourhood as his own family in Algiers, but was refused. The French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (‘OFPRA’) considered this not to amount to persecution under the meaning of the 1951 Refugee Convention. Specifically, it held that although he may be exposed to inhuman or degrading treatment upon return to Algeria, he should be excluded from subsidiary protection because he posed a serious threat to public order. The decision was subsequently confirmed by the National Court of Asylum (‘CNDA’).
Following the end of his custodial sentence, the Applicant was placed in administrative detention pending deportation to Algeria. His appeals against these measures, with further supporting statements from friends and family in Algeria, were dismissed by the Administrative Court.
On 4 December 2013, the Applicant applied to the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’). He maintained that he would be at risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR on return to Algeria. An interim measure was granted by the ECtHR under Rule 39, prohibiting the French authorities from deporting the Applicant throughout the duration of proceedings before the court.
Decision & reasoning:
The ECtHR held that the application was manifestly ill-founded and, as a result, inadmissible. Reiterating that the domestic courts were best placed to assess the evidence presented to them, the Court first observed that in the present case those courts differed in their estimations of the probative value to be attached to the statements from the Applicant’s friends and family in Algeria, which certified that the victim’s family had made threats of violence. It then acknowledged that, while it was difficult to obtain other forms of evidence for this particular type of threat, the statements all came from people who were close to the Applicant.
Leaving this issue aside, supposing that the alleged intention to retaliate could be made out, the Court nonetheless doubted that the Algerian authorities would be incapable of providing the Applicant with an appropriate level of protection, especially if he were to move to another part of the country. It emphasised that Article 3 did not prevent contracting states from taking into account the possibility of relocation. In particular, the Court cited the decisions of Husseini v Sweden, D. N. M. v Sweden and Ndabarishye Rugira v Netherlands. These respectively concerned deportation to Afghanistan, Iraq and the Democratic Republic of Congo, with the alleged risk arising as a result of a generally unsafe situation in those countries. In the present case, the risk concerned private individuals and was confined to a particular neighbourhood, meaning that the same approach could be applied all the more readily. Meanwhile, as a 29-year-old single man, he was in a position to relocate to another area. Accordingly, the Court concluded that there were no substantial grounds for believing that deportation would expose the Applicant to a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3.
Outcome:
Application denied.
Observations/comments:
This case summary was written by Georgia Kandunias, GDL student at BPP University, UK.
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Cited National Legislation:
| Cited National Legislation |
| France - • Code of Entry and Residence of Foreigners and of the Right of Asylum (‘CESEDA’) – Articles L.712-1 |
| L. 712-2 & L. 521-1 |
Cited Cases:
| Cited Cases |
| ECtHR - Husseini v. Sweden, Application No. 10611/09 |
| ECtHR - H. and B. v. the United Kingdom, Application No. 70073/10 and 44539/11 |
| ECtHR - M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece [GC], Application No. 30696/09 |
| ECtHR - A.G.A.M., D.N.M., M.K.N., M.Y.H. and Others, N.A.N.S., N.M.B., N.M.Y. and Others and S.A. v. Sweden, Application Nos. 71680/10, 28379/11, 72413/10, 50859/10, 68411/10, 68335/10, 72686/10 and 66523/10 |
| ECtHR - H.L.R. v. France, Application no. 24573/94 |
| Klaas and Others v. Germany, no. 5029/71 |
| ECtHR - Chahal v. The United Kingdom, Application No. 22414/93, 15 November 1996 |
| ECtHR – Saadi v. Italy, Application No. 37201/06, 28 February 2008 |
| ECtHR - Ndabarishye Rugira v Netherlands – Application No. 10260/13 |
| ECtHR - S. A. v Sweden – Application No. 66523/10 |
Other sources: