Germany - Federal Administrative Court, 24 September 2009, 10 C 25.08
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Persecution Grounds/Reasons
{ return; } );"
>
Description
Per Article 1A ofthe1951 Refugee Convention, one element of the refugee definition is that the persecution feared is “for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion“. Member States must take a number of elements into account when assessing the reasons for persecution as per Article 10 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. |
|
Subsequent application
{ return; } );"
>
Description
Where a person who has applied for refugee status in a Member State makes further representations or a subsequent application in the same Member State. Member States may apply a specific procedure involving a preliminary examination where a decision has been taken on the previous application or where a previous application has been withdrawn or abandoned. As with all aspects of the procedures directive, the same provisions will apply to applicants for subsidiary protection where a single procedure applies to both applications for asylum and subsidiary protection. |
|
Political Opinion
{ return; } );"
>
Description
One of the grounds of persecution specified in the refugee definition per Article 1A ofthe1951 Refugee Convention. According to the Qualification Directive the concept of political opinion includes holding an opinion, thought or belief on a matter related to potential actors of persecution and to their policies or methods, whether or not that opinion, thought or belief has been acted upon by the applicant. |
|
Child Specific Considerations
{ return; } );"
>
Description
Application of a child-sensitive process and assessment of protection status, taking into account persecution of a child-specific nature and the specific protection needs of children. “When assessing refugee claims of unaccompanied or separated children, States shall take into account the development of, and formative relationship between, international human rights and refugee law, including positions developed by UNHCR in exercising its supervisory functions under the 1951 Refugee Convention. In particular, the refugee definition in that Convention must be interpreted in an age and gender-sensitive manner, taking into account the particular motives for, and forms and manifestations of, persecution experienced by children. Persecution of kin; under-age recruitment; trafficking of children for prostitution; and sexual exploitation or subjection to female genital mutilation, are some of the child-specific forms and manifestations of persecution which may justify the granting of refugee status if such acts are related to one of the 1951 Refugee Convention grounds. States should, therefore, give utmost attention to such child-specific forms and manifestations of persecution as well as gender-based violence in national refugee status-determination procedures.” See also the best interests principle. |
Headnote:
If a subsequent asylum application is based on circumstances which the applicant has created by his own decision, refugee status shall not be granted if the applicant was able to develop his own political conviction at the time of the (termination of the) preceding asylum procedure. This can be assumed to be the case at the age of 16, or at the age of 18 at the latest.
Facts:
The applicant came to Germany with his family in 1999, at the age of 15. Following the rejection of the first asylum application, he filed a subsequent application in the year 2000, based on his membership of the "Constitutionalist Party of Iran" and the "Organisation for the Protection of the Iranian Christians’ Rights". This application was also rejected.
A further subsequent application was based on the applicant’s involvement in a stage play critical of the Iranian regime, which had been broadcasted on a TV channel which could be received in Iran. This application was again rejected by the asylum authorities; however, the Administrative Court of Regensburg required the authorities to grant the applicant refugee status in December 2005.
The authorities asked for a further appeal (Berufung) to the High Administrative Court. The High Administrative Court dismissed the further appeal. The High Administrative Court conceded that the applicant had created the reasons on which the fear of persecution was based, by his own decision, after the termination of his first asylum procedure. Accordingly, he would,as a matter of principle, not be eligible for refugee status under German law. However, the High Administrative Court found that his case was an exceptional one, since the applicant, due to his age at the time of the first asylum procedure, had not been in a position to form a political opinion of his own at this time.
The authorities' further appeal to the Federal Administrative Court (Revision) focused on this issue. The authorities argued, inter alia, that the High Administrative Court had been wrong in assuming that there was an exception from the rule excluding “post-flight reasons created by one's own decision” ("selbstgeschaffene Nachfluchtgründe") since the applicant had been of legal age at the time of his second application.
Decision & reasoning:
The decision by the High Administrative Court was annulled and the case was sent back to the High Administrative Court. The court stated:
According to Art 5.3 of the Qualification Directive, Member States may adopt their own regulations regarding circumstances which were created by the applicant's own decision after the termination of a previous asylum procedure. In Germany, refugee status may in principle not be granted based on reasons which were created by the applicant’s own decision after the legally valid rejection or withdrawal of a previous application. The legislator thus has provided that such circumstances are in principle suspected of having been brought about abusively , i.e. for the sole reason of supporting a subsequent application. Accordingly, it is not the state which has to prove that circumstances created by the applicant’s own decision were created abusively, but it is the applicant who has to prove that this is not the case.
The relevant date for assessing circumstances which the applicant has created by his own decision, is not the date of departure from the country of origin, but the moment when the former asylum procedure was terminated. In case of several asylum procedures, the most recent procedure is the relevant one. At that time the applicant was already 18 years old and therefore in a position to develop his own political opinion. This can be assumed after attaining the age of 16, or, at the latest, the age of 18.
Since the High Administrative Court did not establish sufficiently whether this case may still be an exceptional case for other reasons, the matter has to be remanded to the High Administrative Court. Though the applicant’s political activities during the previous subsequent asylum procedure are an indication for this assumption, he has to explain why he intensified his activities after the termination of the previous procedure.
Outcome:
The decision of the High Administrative Court was annulled. The matter was remanded to the High Administrative Court Bayern for a new decision.
Subsequent proceedings:
Unknown. The applicant has since obtained a residence permit and therefore is no longer at risk of deportation to Iran.
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Cited Cases:
| Cited Cases |
| Germany - Federal Administrative Court, 18 December 2008, 10 C 27.07 |
Follower Cases:
| Follower Cases |
| Germany - High Administrative Court Baden-Wurttemberg, 3 November 2011, A 8 S 1116/11 |