Belgium - Council for Alien Law Litigation, 2 May 2013, No. 102283

Facts:

The Applicant is a Palestinian from a refugee camp (Burj el-Shemali) in Lebanon. She applied for asylum in Belgium to escape a forced marriage and because the UNRWA refused to support her.

The Office of the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons did not find her story credible. It refused to recognise refugee status.

Decision & reasoning:

The judge first stressed that it was not contested that the Applicant was registered with the UNRWA and was from a refugee camp in Lebanon where she could claim support from the UNRWA. She thus falls within the scope of protection of Article 1(D) of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

Secondly, the judge summarised the judgment in the CJEU case Abed El Karem El Kott and Others v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal. He stated that the recognition of an individual as a refugee by operation of the law under Article 1(D) applies only if 'the asylum seeker personally finds himself in grave danger' and the UNRWA 'was unable to offer him living conditions in that area that met the objective it was tasked with.' He found that this was not the case, here.

The judge assessed the credibility of the Applicant's assertions regarding her forced marriage and other problems (conflict with a neighbour, practical impossibility of obtaining help from the UNRWA for political reasons, etc.) He decided not to believe these statements, especially as the Applicant had lied about the route she had taken to arrive in Belgium.

The judge evaluated the general situation in the refugee camp the Applicant came from. He conceded that refugees living in that camp were confronted with harsh living conditions. He found, however, that mere reference to this general situation did not suffice; the Applicant would have to show specifically that she, personally, was in 'grave danger'.

The judge therefore concluded: 'the Applicant has not demonstrated that she left Lebanon for reasons beyond her control and against her will, thus preventing her from enjoying the support provided by the UNRWA'. He upheld the decision by the Office of the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons.

Outcome:

The application was rejected.

Observations/comments:

This judgment is part of a development in case law of the Council for Alien Law Litigation concerning the application of Article 1(D) of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Before the Bolbol (Nawras Bolbol v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal, C-31/09) and El Kott cases by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the asylum seeker who fell within the scope of Article 1(D) had to show either a well-founded fear of persecution (see, for example, Council for Alien Law Litigation, No. 57745 of 11 March 2011) or find himself practically unable to return (see, for example, Council for Alien Law Litigation, No. 52954 of 13 December 2010).