Portugal: Administrative Litigation Section of the Central Administrative Court, 24/10/2019, proc. nº 397/19.9BELSB
| Country of Decision: | Portugal |
| Country of applicant: | Congo (DRC) |
| Court name: | Central Administrative Court |
| Date of decision: | 24-10-2019 |
| Citation: | Administrative Litigation Section of the Central Administrative Court, 24/10/2019, proc. nº 397/19.9BELSB |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Benefit of doubt
Description
The advantage derived from doubt about guilt, a possible error, or the weight of evidence. “When statements are not susceptible of proof, even with independent research, if the applicant's account appears credible, he should, unless there are good reasons to the contrary, be given the benefit of the doubt. The requirement of evidence should thus not be too strictly applied in view of the difficulty of proof inherent in the special situation in which an applicant for refugee status finds himself. Allowance for such possible lack of evidence does not, however, mean that unsupported statements must necessarily be accepted as true if they are inconsistent with the general account put forward by the applicant." |
|
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." |
|
Humanitarian considerations
Description
“Factors relevant to the consideration of a decision to grant humanitarian protection. Humanitarian protection is a concept that encompasses all activities aimed at obtaining full respect for the rights of the individual in accordance with the letter and spirit of human rights, refugee and international humanitarian law. Protection involves creating an environment conducive to respect for human beings, preventing and/or alleviating the immediate effects of a specific pattern of abuse, and restoring dignified conditions of life through reparation, restitution and rehabilitation.” The grant of permission tothird country nationals or stateless persons toremain in Member States for reasons not due to a need for international protection but on a discretionary basis on compassionate or humanitarian groundsis not currently harmonised at a European level. However per Art. 15 Dublin II Reg., even where it is not responsible under the criteria set out in the Regulatiosn, aMember Statemay bring together family members, as well as other dependent relatives, on humanitarian grounds based in particular on family or cultural considerations. |
Headnote:
The applicant claims that the original Court neither made a detailed analysis of the applicant's political action – that gave rise to the persecution and, consequently, the asylum application – nor of the subsidiary protection application.
The recursive claim was declared unfounded by the Central Court, which found that there was no evidence of persecution or systematic human rights violations in the country of origin.
Facts:
The applicant, a national of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, left his country of origin because he believed the authorities would detain him due to his work as a union leader.
In 2019, he arrived at the airport of Lisboa without valid documents to travel. He then applied for asylum, which the Portuguese authorities denied. Following the rejection of his application, he lodged an appeal against that refusal.
Decision & reasoning:
First, the Court noted that the applicant had not presented any facts related to the analysis of the conditions' fulfillment to benefit from international protection, having provided incoherent and contradictory statements
Moreover, the Court stated that the applicant did not indicate any persecutory act or threats that constitute systematic human rights violations. Thus, the Court did not consider the case eligible for subsidiary protection.
Dismissing all the applicant’s invocations against the decision appealed, the Court denied the appeal and rejected the asylum application.
Outcome:
Appeal denied
Observations/comments:
This summary was written by Larissa Beckman, LLM stuent at Queen Mary University London.
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Cited National Legislation:
| Cited National Legislation |
| 15 |
| 13 |
| 16 |
| 18 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
| 7 |
| 26 |
| Art. 3 |
| 84 |
| 499 Law 27/2008 |
| Art. 41 Law 23/2007 |
Other sources:
Domestic case law cited
- Admin Court South, n. º 441/19.0BELSB, 26-09-2019
- Admin Court South, n. º 77/19.5BELSB, 06-06-2019
- Admin Court South, n. º 2764/17.3 BELSB, 06-08-2018
- Admin Court South, n. º 1888/17.1BELSB, 31-01-2018
- Admin Court South, n. º 420/16.9BELSB, 02-08-2016
- Admin Court South, n. º 13568/16, 10-08-2016
- Admin Court North, n. º 1182/17.8/BEBRG, 30-05-2018
- Admin Court North, n. º 01647/17.1BELSB, 26-01-2018
- Supreme Admin Court, Proc. n. º 42793, 07-05-1998
- Supreme Admin Court, Proc. n. º 43838, 02-02-1999