Belgium - Council for Alien Law Litigation, 24 June 2010, Nr. 45.396
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Burden of proof
Description
"In the migration context, a non-national seeking entry into a foreign State must prove that he or she is entitled to enter and is not inadmissible under the laws of that State. In refugee status procedures, where an applicant must establish his or her case, i.e. show on the evidence that he or she has well-founded fear of persecution. Note: A broader definition may be found in the Oxford Dictionary of Law." |
|
Country of former habitual residence
Description
The country in which a stateless person had resided and where s/he had suffered or fears s/he would suffer persecution if s/he returned. For the purposes of the Qualification Directive, “country of origin” means, for stateless persons, the country or countries of former habitual residence. |
|
Stateless person
Description
Person who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law. This includes also a person whose nationality is not established. |
|
Nationality
Description
One of the grounds of persecution specified in the refugee definition per Article 1A ofthe1951 Refugee Convention. Nationality can be defined generally as the legal bond between a person and a State which does not indicate the person's ethnic origin. According to the Qualification Directive, when considered as a reason for persecution, the concept of nationality is not confined to citizenship or lack thereof and, in particular, includes membership of a group determined by its cultural, ethnic, or linguistic identity, common geographical or political origins or its relationship with the population of another State |
Headnote:
Facts:
Decision & reasoning:
In the case at hand, the CALL decided that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to conclude that he had either nationality. However, the only consistent element in his statements was that he was of Roma ethnicity and that his place of birth was in Kosovo. He had also lived for a large part of his life in (what is now) Kosovo. The CALL therefore held that any assessment of persecution should be assessed against Kosovo, which could be considered as the country of his former habitual residence.
Given that the statements of the applicant were contradictory and could be construed as implausible, the CALL held that a well-founded fear of persecution was not proven. The CALL recognised, however (given that the only consistent element in the applicant’s account was that he was Roma) that it had to be examined whether the situation of the Roma in Kosovo was such that it could warrant international protection. The CALL ruled that, even if the situation of the Roma in Kosovo was sometimes difficult, there was no such need to grant international protection.
Outcome:
The case was dismissed.
Observations/comments:
This decision was taken by the General Assembly of the CALL, in which all the judges – from both the Dutch and French language chambers – sit. The purpose of such decisions is to ensure the unity of the CALL’s caselaw.