Finland - Helsinki Administrative Court, 30 Nov 2010, 10/1772/3
| Country of Decision: | Finland |
| Court name: | Helsinki Administrative Court |
| Date of decision: | 30-11-2010 |
| Citation: | 10/1772/3 |
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. |
|
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. |
|
Internal protection
Description
Where in a part of the country of origin there is no well-founded fear of being persecuted or no real risk of suffering serious harm and the applicant can reasonably be expected to stay in that part of the country. |
Headnote:
The Administrative Court returned the case to the Finnish Immigration Service for re-examination as the Immigration Service had not given sufficient reasons for its decision and had used only a limited amount of country of origin information. Additionally new evidence had been presented in the case during the appeal, which had not been taken into account during the decision making process.
Facts:
The applicant had fled persecution in Afghanistan. He had owned a shop there and armed men demanded that he pay a religious tax. The shop was attacked, the applicant was assaulted and money was stolen from him. He was unable to receive effective protection from the local authorities. The applicant’s sister was murdered after the applicant left the country.
The Immigration Service made a negative finding in the applicant’s case on the grounds that the applicant’s region of origin in Afghanistan must be considered as a safe area to live. The Immigration Service did not provide reasons for the decision. The Immigration Service also did not provide reasons as to why they did not follow UNHCR guidelines (UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from Afghanistan, July 2009) regarding the safety of the district in question.
The Immigration Service held that the applicant could seek protection from the authorities in his country of origin.
New information came to light in the case after the Immigration Service had made their first decision, which had not been taken into account during the decision making process.
Decision & reasoning:
The Administrative Court held that a procedural error has been made in the case.
The Court stated that a decision must be reasoned and the reasoning must include information concerning the causes and accounts which have affected the decision. According to the Aliens Act 98. 2§ when granting a residence permit, the assessment must be made on an individual basis taking into consideration the applicant’s own description of the conditions in the country in question as well as current information from a variety of sources regarding the conditions in the country.
The Court held that the decision made by the Immigration Service, as well as the information used from various sources, did not provide reasons why the district in question departed from the safety guidelines laid down by UNHCR. In making the decision, the Immigration Service had only made reference to its own guidelines regarding Afghanistan. According to the Court, a lack of reasons cannot be covered by a statement made to the appeal organ, particularly when the statement does not indicate those factors which have affected the conclusions drawn by the country of information unit of the determining authority. The country guidance used by the Immigration Service was only made public after the decision had been made. Additionally in its decision, the Immigration Service had determined that the situation in the country in question was different from what the country of origin information had indicated.
The Court held that the Immigration Service, in making its decision, had not presented necessary reasoning required by the Aliens Act and Act on Administrative Conduct. Additionally new information, regarding the violence experienced by the applicant, had been brought to light during the appeal stage which the Immigration Service would not have been able to take account of when making the decision.
Outcome:
Due to the procedural error and the new information which had come to light, the Court overturned the decision made by the Immigration Service and returned the case to the Immigration Service for re-examination.
Subsequent proceedings:
The Immigration Service made a new negative finding in the case and an appeal is still pending before the Administrative Court.
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Other sources:
UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from Afghanistan, July 2009