Czech Republic - Supreme Administrative Court, 28 July 2009, L.O. v Ministry of Interior, 5 Azs 40/2009

Facts:

The applicant was from Senegal and applied for asylum in the Czech Republic. He claimed his family was slaughtered by rebels while he was away from his home. These rebels were fighting against the government. The applicant feared persecution from the rebels.

The Czech Ministry of Interior (MOI) dismissed the application as manifestly unfounded. MOI stated that the applicant did not provide grounds upon which it could be concluded there was a risk of serious harm. The Regional Court (RC) annulled the decision of the MOI. The RC agreed that the relevant asylum ground was missing, but due to the armed conflict in Senegal, considered there was a possibility that subsidiary protection could be granted. Subsequently the MOI issued a new decision, in which it again refused to grant international protection to the applicant based on similar arguments to the first decision. The MOI added that even if there was a possibility of real risk of serious harm, internal protection was available to the applicant. The applicant challenged the decision before the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC).  
 

Decision & reasoning:

The Court came to several conclusions in it's decision and stated:

I. When assessing the extent of the applicant’s knowledge regarding his country of origin, the applicant's educational and cultural background should be considered.

II. An applicant must be allowed an opportunity to present all of the reasons for the basis of his application (this is usually done during the asylum interview(s) conducted by the administrative authority).

III. When assessing the possibility of internal protection [§ 2/8 of the Asylum Act, in conjunction with Art 8.1 and 8.2 of the Qualification Directive (2004/83/EC)] it is necessary to consider four criteria as set out below:

(1) whether another part of the country is available for the applicant to move to;

(2) whether the move to another part of the country is an effective solution to prevent future persecution or serious harm in the original region;

(3) whether there would be a risk of any future harm on return to the country of origin;

(4) whether protection in other parts of the country meets the minimum standard of human rights (having considered all the circumstances of the country of origin, can the applicant lead a normal life without facing disproportional hardships).

In order to carry out an assessment as to whether or not these four criteria are satisfied, the overall situation in the country of origin and the personal circumstances of the applicant need to be taken into account.

IV. The provisions of § 14(a)(2) of the Asylum Act, must be interpreted in accordance with Art 15(a) of the Qualification Directive (2004/83/EC). Art 15(a) provides that serious harm consists of "the death penalty or execution." The term "execution", however, has a wider scope than "capital punishment" because the execution may take place without a trial and without any formal imposition of a death sentence, and execution can be imposed by non-State actors.

Outcome:

The appeal was successful and the decision of the Regional Court and the MOI was dismissed.

Observations/comments:

Case available on the website of the Supreme Administrative Court - www.nssoud.cz