Greece - Appeals Committee, 24 September 2015, 11057
| Country of Decision: | Greece |
| Country of applicant: | Bangladesh |
| Court name: | Appeals Committee. (President: P. Katsari, Members: Il. Tsabardoukas, An. Papanastasiou) |
| Date of decision: | 24-09-2015 |
| Citation: | 6th Appeals Committee decision (Doc. Ref: 11057/2015) |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Personal interview
Description
"The process of questioning or talking with a person in order to obtain information or determine the personal qualities of the person. An interview is a common step in the adjudication of an application for refugee or other immigration status.” An applicant for asylum must be given the opportunity of a personal interview subject to the provisions of the Asylum Procedures Directive: - A personal interview must normally take place without the presence of family members unless considered necessary for an appropriate examination. - It must be conducted under conditions which allow applicants to present the grounds for their applications in a comprehensive manner and which ensure appropriate confidentiality. - the person who conducts the interview must be sufficiently competent to take account of the personal or general circumstances surrounding the application, including the applicant’s cultural origin or vulnerability, insofar as it is possible to do so - interpreters must be able to ensure appropriate communication between the applicant and the person who conducts the interview but it need not necessarily take place in the language preferred by the applicant if there is another language which he/she may reasonably be supposed to understand and in which he/she is able to communicate. - Member States may provide for rules concerning the presence of third parties at a personal interview. - a written report must be made of every personal interview, containing at least the essential information regarding the application as presented by the applicant - applicants must have timely access to the report of the personal interview and in any case as soon as necessary for allowing an appeal to be prepared and lodged in due time." |
|
Relevant Documentation
Description
“All documentation at the applicants disposal regarding the applicant's age, background, including that of relevant relatives, identity, nationality(ies), country(ies) and place(s) of previous residence, previous asylum applications, travel routes, identity and travel documents and the reasons for applying for international protection.” |
|
Safe third country
Description
Any other country, not being the country of origin, in which an asylum seeker has found or might have found protection. Note: The notion of safe third country (protection elsewhere/first asylum principle) is often used as a criterion of admissibility to the refugee determination procedure. |
|
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." |
|
Refugee Status
Description
The recognition by a Member State of a third-country national or stateless person as a refugee. |
Headnote:
The applicant did not have the possibility to have his allegations (which also supported his subsequent application) duly taken into consideration. His written answers to the questions asked by the administrative authorities on his subsequent application were not documented with precision. His allegations need to be examined and evaluated further.
Facts:
The applicant, a Sunni Muslim from Bangladesh, had applied for international protection on grounds that he faced persecution in his country of origin. The applicant claimed that he escaped from Bangladesh in 2008 due to certain land disputes that occurred in his village. Additionally, he stated that he does not wish to return, because he fears he might be tortured or killed by his enemies. Following an oral hearing of the applicant at the Regional Asylum Office in Attica, his application for international protection was dismissed as being unfounded. His appeal before the Appeals Committee was refused.
On the 25th May 2015, the applicant, whilst in detention, submitted a subsequent application. Instead of including the required information in detail, most fields of required information in the application form, including some for personal details and for recording the reasons & elements of the application, made reference to the previous application (by indicating the phrase “As shown in previous application” or “P.A.”). The application was later rejected on grounds that no new elements had been brought forward. The applicant appealed this decision to the Appeals Committee.
Decision & reasoning:
After examining the available documentation, the Committee notes that most answers indicate the phrase “As shown in previous application” or “P.A.”. This was not just the case for questions concerning the personal information of the applicant, but even those related to the substantial grounds for international protection.
Only to the question “Do you have something to add / amend to the above statements?”, was a different answer recorded, namely “I was detained for 19 months. I also want to say that in Bangladesh my brother disappeared”.
According to the Committee the transcription of “P.A.” in the answers demonstrates three things:
- That the relevant guidelines from the Asylum Service for transcribers have not been abided by (paragraph 8.1, para. 8.2.6 and para. 14.1.3 page 95 of the Guidelines ForThe Handling Of The Asylum Procedure).
- That doubts had arisen about whether the questions were really submitted to the applicant.
- That the transcription of the subsequent application for the decision-making authorities does not record the exact answers and updated reasons for which the applicant does not wish to return to his country of origin.
For those reasons, and due to the fact that the transcriber hindered the work of the decision-making authorities, the authorities are deprived of essential material (crucial information) on which a later application is evaluated.
Therefore, based on the rationale that the applicant just repeated the data, allegations and future fears that he had expressed in his initial application, the Committee rejected the later application as unacceptable.
The allegation about his brother disappearing was indeed new, but nevertheless not substantial / material, and does not fall under the requirements of refugee or of beneficiary of international protection status.
Nonetheless, it is not shown that he was asked, during the transcription, to further explain the conditions of the disappearance, so one cannot dismiss the possibility of them being material.
Thus, the Committee, within the spirit of protection of asylum applicants according to the Geneva Convention of 1951, judges that the allegations that the applicant wished to highlight, in support of his subsequent application, have to be examined and evaluated further, according to para. 4, article 23 of the P.D. 113/2013.
Outcome:
Appeal granted.
Remittance of the decision to the examining authority to undertake a thorough and rigorous examination of the claim.
Observations/comments:
The decision primarily demonstrates the ongoing flaws that exist in the asylum procedure in Greece, and more specifically highlights the issues existing in the personal interview phase.
As far as the interview procedure goes, the Appeals Committee judged that there are serious doubts concerning the correct transcription of the facts; doubts which hinder the evaluation of the material and potential new evidence in the subsequent application.
This case summary was written by Hermione Barelier is an MBA and GDL graduate (BPP University Law School).
This case summary was proof read Nafsika Vasileiadou, a LLM student at Queen Mary University, London.
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Other sources:
Para. 8.1, 8.2.6 and 14.1.3 page 95 of the instructions of the Asylum Service for transcribers, in the “Guidelines For The Handling Of The Asylum Procedure”.