Czech Republic - Supreme Administrative Court, 3 November 2011, O.P. v Ministry of Interior, 2 Azs 28/2011-82
| Country of Decision: | Czech Republic |
| Country of applicant: | Ghana |
| Court name: | Supreme Administrative Court |
| Date of decision: | 03-11-2011 |
| Citation: | 2 Azs 28/2011-82 |
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. |
|
Persecution Grounds/Reasons
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. |
|
Standard of proof
Description
The degree or level of persuasiveness of the evidence required in a specific case. For example, in the refugee context, ‘well-founded’ is a standard of proof when assessing the fear of persecution. |
|
Well-founded fear
Description
One of the central elements of the refugee definition under Article 1A ofthe1951 Refugee Convention is a “well-founded fear of persecution”: "Since fear is subjective, the definition involves a subjective element in the person applying for recognition as a refugee. Determination of refugee status will therefore primarily require an evaluation of the applicant's statements rather than a judgement on the situation prevailing in his country of origin. To the element of fear--a state of mind and a subjective condition--is added the qualification ‘well-founded’. This implies that it is not only the frame of mind of the person concerned that determines his refugee status, but that this frame of mind must be supported by an objective situation. The term ‘well-founded fear’ therefore contains a subjective and an objective element, and in determining whether well-founded fear exists, both elements must be taken into consideration." |
Headnote:
When refusing a claim for asylum the decision-maker must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant's fear is not well founded.
Facts:
The applicant lodged an application for international protection in the Czech Republic because of his fear of serious harm due to his refusal to succeed to the throne in a Ghanaian village after the death of his father, as he did not agree with the practice of traditional religious rituals. He was not granted international protection as the Ministry of Interior (MOI) did not consider that the applicant had established grounds for granting asylum.
The applicant appealed to the Regional Court, which dismissed the motion. Consequently, the applicant filed a cassation complaint in the Supreme Administrative Court.
Decision & reasoning:
The SAC concluded that the applicant's claim that he feared persecution for the above-mentioned reasons cannot constitute a reason for deeming the applicant eligible for asylum.
Such conclusion would have to be supported by country of origin information (COI), relevant to the situation described by the applicant, which established without substantial doubt that it was clear that the applicant’s fear was well founded.
The SAC rejected the appeal because it was established beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant's fear was not well-founded having regard to COI.
Outcome:
The appeal was dismissed.
Observations/comments:
Decision no. 2 Azs 28/2011-82 available at www.nssoud.cz
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Cited Cases:
| Cited Cases |
| Czech Republic - Supreme Administrative Court, 24 February 2004, Y.A. v Ministry of Interior, 6 Azs 50/2003-89 |
| Czech Republic - Supreme Administrative Court, 26 March 2008, A.H.M. v. Ministry of the Interior, 2 Azs 71/2006-82 |
| Czech Republic - 4 Azs 103/2007-63 (Supreme Administrative Court) |