Greece - 7th Appeals Committee, 28 June 2019
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Country of origin information
Description
"Information used by the Member States authorities to analyse the socio-political situation in countries of origin of applicants for international protection (and, where necessary, in countries through which they have transited) in the assessment, carried out on an individual basis, of an application for international protection.” It includes all relevant facts as they relate to the country of origin at the time of taking a decision on the application, obtained from various sources, including the laws and regulations of the country of origin and the manner in which they are applied, regulations of the country of origin, plus general public sources, such as reports from (inter)national organisations, governmental and non-governmental organisations, media, bi-lateral contacts in countries of origin, embassy reports, etc. This information is also used inter alia for taking decisions on other migration issues, e.g. on return, as well as by researchers. One of the stated aims of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) is to progressively bring all activities related to practical cooperation on asylum under its roof, to include the collection of Country of Origin Information and a common approach to its use. |
|
Subsidiary Protection
Description
The protection given to a third-country national or a stateless person who does not qualify as a refugee but in respect of whom substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned, 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, would face a real risk of suffering serious harm as defined in Article 15 of 2004/83/EC, and to whom Article 17(1) and (2) of 2004/83/EC do not apply, and is unable, or, owing to such risk, unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country.” “Note: The UK has opted into the Qualification Directive (2004/83/EC) but does not (legally) use the term Subsidiary Protection. It is believed that the inclusion of Humanitarian Protection within the UK Immigration rules fully transposes the Subsidiary Protection provisions of the Qualification Directive into UK law. |
Headnote:
The political, humanitarian and economic crisis in Venezuela can justify subsidiary protection status if the individual’s return to the country of origin, would cause serious harm, characterized by the level of seriousness required to be considered as inhuman and degrading treatment.
Facts:
Decision & reasoning:
On their claim of risk to their lives because of their political action and the hostile incidents they experienced, the Committee characterized it by a lack of clarity and specificity, as there was no sufficient personal information and no detailed description,. The applicants gave vague information and were not in a position to justify why they were still at risk of being prosecuted by the public authorities after having resigned from their posts and without any political action. Moreover, the robbery was presented as a single and occasional event that could reasonably be linked to the financial situation and criminality that prevailed in Venezuela at that time. Therefore, the Committee did not accept the aforementioned allegations of persecution due to their political beliefs and concluded that no reasonable fear, as described in article 1 A (2) of 1951 Refugee Convention, has been established.
Regarding the claim of financial precariousness and deficiencies in food and medicine provision in Venezuela, the Committee accepted it as credible as, in addition to the applicants’ coherent narrative in this respect, numerous sources confirm these claims. However, the Committee noted that their reluctance to return to Venezuela because of the financial situation does not establish a ground to justify refugee status, as it does not constitute any form of personal discrimination or prosecution by any governmental actor preventing them from working in the country.
The Committee continued by examining their eligibility for subsidiary protection. It held that it is probable that the eventual return of this family, who had already achieved some level of integration into the Greek society following seven years of residence, to Venezuela would put them in a risk of serious harm, as described in Article 15 (b) of P.D. 141/2013 (transposition of Qualification Directive 2011/95/EU on subsidiary protection). This harm is characterized by the level of severity required to be considered as inhuman and degrading treatment.
Therefore, their return would jeopardize their physical integrity and mental health and would constitute a breach by the host country of its international obligations under Article 3 of the ECHR and Article 3 of the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (non-refoulement clause), as well as Articles 6 and 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that have been ratified by Greece and enjoy supremacy over national law.
Outcome:
Appeal partly granted; recognition of subsidiary protection status.
Observations/comments:
This summary was completed by Danai Spentzou, Human Rights LLM student at Queen Mary University of London.
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Cited National Legislation:
Cited Cases:
| Cited Cases |
| CJEU - C-465/07 Meki Elgafaji, Noor Elgafaji v Staatssecretaris van Justitie |
| ECtHR - Budina v. Russia, Application No. 45603/05 |
| ECtHR - M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece [GC], Application No. 30696/09 |
| ECtHR - Kalashnikov v. Russia, No. 47095/99 , § 102, ECHR 2002-VI |
| ECtHR - Fadele v United Kingdom, No 13078/87 |
| ECtHR – Saadi v. Italy, Application No. 37201/06, 28 February 2008 |
Other sources:
The Committee relied on several cases decided by the Greek Council of State, including, 1647/2010, 2424/2007, 1653/2008, 1556/2011, 2401/2010, 1464/2010, 158/2010, 2232/2005, 418/2010, 4544/2012, 2905/2011, 2910/2011.