Belgium – Council of State, 7 August 2007, Nr. 173.899
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. |
|
Credibility assessment
Description
Assessment made in adjudicating an application for a visa, or other immigration status, in order to determine whether the information presented by the applicant is consistent and credible. |
|
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.” |
Headnote:
The Council of State ruled that significant similarities between accounts that were being presented by different asylum seekers with the same nationality, ethnic origin and provenance, who applied for asylum in the same period of time, was certainly remarkable, even suspicious, but that this suspicion alone does not suffice to establish fraud by the applicants.
Facts:
The asylum applications of a married couple X and Y, both of Russian nationality, had been rejected by the Office of the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (CGRS) on the basis of a number of contradictions and omissions, but also on consideration that there were significant similarities between their accounts and the accounts of other asylum seekers with the same nationality, ethnic background and provenance, who had lodged an application for asylum in the same period. X and Y lodged an appeal against these decisions before the Council of State (old procedure), requesting the annulment of the decisions, as well as the suspension of their removal.
Decision & reasoning:
The Auditor firstly considered that: “the significant similarities between the accounts brought forward by different asylum seekers of the same nationality, ethnic origin and provenance, who filed for asylum in the same period of time, is certainly remarkable, even suspicious. This similarity in itself, however, is manifestly insufficient to establish fraud on the part of the applicants themselves. Nothing excludes, after all, that the account is the truth for at least one of the applicants that presents it. The opposing party is obliged to examine concretely the alleged personal fears of each one of them.”
Outcome:
The Council of State orderded the annulement of the decisions of the CGRS.