Portugal: Administrative Litigation Section of the Central Administrative Court, 23/05/2019, proc. nº 2039/18.0BELSB
| Country of Decision: | Portugal |
| Country of applicant: | Congo (DRC) |
| Court name: | Central Administrative Court |
| Date of decision: | 23-05-2019 |
| Citation: | Administrative Litigation Section of the Central Administrative Court, 23/05/2019, proc. nº 2039/18.0BELSB |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Assessment of facts and circumstances
Description
The duty of the state to carry out an individual assessment of all relevant elements of the asylum application according to the provisions of Article 4 of the Qualification Directive, including considering past persecution and credibility; and the duty of the applicant to submit as soon as possible all statements and documentation necessary to substantiate the application. |
|
Individual assessment
Description
The carrying out of an assessment on an individual and personal basis. In relation to applications for international protection, per Article 4(3) of the Qualification Directive, this includes taking into account: (a) all relevant facts as they relate to the country of origin at the time of taking a decision; (b) the relevant statements and documentation presented by the applicant; “(c) the individual position and personal circumstances of the applicant, including factors such as background, gender and age, so as to assess whether, on the basis of the applicant's personal circumstances, the acts to which the applicant has been or could be exposed would amount to persecution or serious harm; (d) whether the applicant's activities since leaving the country of origin were engaged in for the sole or main purpose of creating the necessary conditions for applying for international protection, so as to assess whether these activities will expose the applicant to persecution or serious harm if returned to that country; (e) whether the applicant could reasonably be expected to avail himself of the protection of another country where he could assert citizenship.” |
|
Obligation to give reasons
Description
Obligation on a decision-maker to give reasons for an administrative decision including applications for international protection and decisions taken under the Dublin II Regulation |
Headnote:
The lower Court could not have carried out a more critical analysis, especially since there was no evidence, since the applicant’s entire claim was based on personal reasons.
Facts:
The applicant, a national of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, applied for international protection to the Portuguese State.
The Administrative Court of Lisboa dismissed the administrative action filed by the applicant.
Decision & reasoning:
The Court considered the appeal unfounded for several reasons, pronouncing the inadmissibility of the application for international protection.
The Court noted that the Administrative Court of Lisboa did not incur any omission that could justify its decision's nullity.
The Court stated that, in the case of an application for international protection, it is imperative to know whether its grounds are in the rules governing that legal institute. However, there was no connection between the reasons underlying the request and the conditions that make up the framework for international protection purposes.
The Court declared that it could not see to what extent the original Court could have carried out a more critical analysis, and on what evidence, since the applicant’s entire claim was based on personal reasons. The applicant did not refer to a fear of returning to the Congo due to a situation of systematic human rights violations.
About the applicant’s claim that the original decision lacks the essential formality of article 17 from the Portuguese Asylum Law, the Court dismissed it based on two arguments. First, the argument was never raised in the first instance, meaning it could not be raised in the appeal. Secondly, because Article 17 is only applicable to international protection applicants whose application has already been made in national territory, which was not the case since the applicant made her request at the Border Post. Therefore, the administrative authority did not neglect any essential formalities.
The Court concluded that the decision was correctly and legally rendered and did not suffer from any defect that would invalidate it, as well as the sentence that confirmed it, which must be maintained with all its legal consequences.
Outcome:
Appeal denied.
Observations/comments:
This summary was written by Larissa Beckman, LLM stuent at Queen Mary University London.
Cited National Legislation:
| Cited National Legislation |
| 10 |
| 3 |
| 24 |
| 2 |
| 17 |
| 7 |
| 26 |
| rt. 1 |
| 19 |
| 23 |
| 84 da Lei 27/2008 |
| Art. 1 |
| 94 |
| 140 Procedural Code for Administrative Courts |
| Art. 147 |
| 466 |
| 552 |
| 607 |
| 615 |
| 635 |
| 639 |
| 640 |
| 662 Procedural Civil Code |
| Art. 108 Procedural Tributary Code |
Other sources:
Domestic Case Law cited
- Admin Court South, 24-01-2019, Proc. nº 1434/18.BELSB
- Admin Court South, 02-06-2016, Proc. n. º 13273/16
- Admin Court South, 26-03-2015, Proc. nº 11691/14
- Admin Court South, 22/09/2016, Proc. nº 13594/16
- Admin Court North, 28-01-2016, Proc. n. º 00479/09.5BEPRT
- Admin Court North, 28-01-2016, Proc. n. º 00831/06.8BEPEN
- Admin Court North, 25-05-2016, Proc. n. º 00724/04.3BEVIS