Netherlands - District Court Amsterdam, 15 February 2008, AWB 08/3077; 08/3083; 08/3085
| Country of Decision: | Netherlands |
| Country of applicant: | Togo |
| Court name: | District Court Amsterdam |
| Date of decision: | 15-02-2008 |
| Citation: | Netherlands - DisAWB 08/3077 (asylum appeal); 08/3083 (temporary injunction); 08/3085 (appeal custodial measure) |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Accelerated procedure
Description
Prioritisation or acceleration of any examination in accordance with the basic principles and guarantees of Chapter II of the Asylum Procedures Directive, including where the application is likely to be well-founded or where the applicant has special needs or for any of the reasons in Article 23(4) of the Asylum Procedures Directive |
|
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. |
|
Country of origin information
Description
"Information used by the Member States authorities to analyse the socio-political situation in countries of origin of applicants for international protection (and, where necessary, in countries through which they have transited) in the assessment, carried out on an individual basis, of an application for international protection.” It includes all relevant facts as they relate to the country of origin at the time of taking a decision on the application, obtained from various sources, including the laws and regulations of the country of origin and the manner in which they are applied, regulations of the country of origin, plus general public sources, such as reports from (inter)national organisations, governmental and non-governmental organisations, media, bi-lateral contacts in countries of origin, embassy reports, etc. This information is also used inter alia for taking decisions on other migration issues, e.g. on return, as well as by researchers. One of the stated aims of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) is to progressively bring all activities related to practical cooperation on asylum under its roof, to include the collection of Country of Origin Information and a common approach to its use. |
Headnote:
The Secretary of State for Justice does not have to give an applicant who submitted copies of documents of which he had the possibility of acquiring the originals before he left his country, an opportunity to submit these originals during the asylum process, regardless of the State’s duty to conduct research and cooperate with the applicant as determined in Art 8 of the Procedures Directive and Art 4 of the Qualification Directive.
Facts:
The applicant put forward that he was politically active for the opposition party Union de Force de Changement (UFC). He participated in demonstrations and as a result of this he was repeatedly arrested and imprisoned. He was also repeatedly mistreated. An arrest warrant was issued against the applicant and it was published in two newspapers. In this arrest warrant, the applicant was accused of insulting the president of parliament and of being homosexual. The applicant fled to Ghana after the police came looking for him at his home. The applicant submitted that he wasn’t safe there either. He travelled to the Netherlands. The Secretary of State found the applicant’s account implausible. The applicant had submitted copies of the two newspaper articles. Under Dutch law (Art 83 of the Aliens Act 2000), these articles do not have any weight with regard to the assessment of the application due to the fact that they are mere copies and the authenticity cannot be determined.
Decision & reasoning:
After his departure from Togo, the applicant had spent some time in Ghana. As a result of this, the court did not see why the applicant could not have had the original articles at his disposal before his departure from Ghana. The applicant had not substantiated why these articles would lead to problems with the Ghanaian authorities. The Court also stated that the Respondent was not required to allow the applicant time to still produce the originals or to investigate them independently. Neither the requirement to examine the application contained in Art 8 of the Procedures Directive, nor the State’s duty to cooperate with the applicant in the assessment of relevant elements of the application, as provided in Art 4 of the Qualification Directive expand the State’s obligations already in national laws and regulations.
A comprehensive second interview and accompanying written report is in itself not a decisive factor that the Secretary of State for Justice acted negligently by processing the applicant’s asylum application in the 48 hours-procedure (accelerated asylum procedure, abolished as of July 2010, ed.).
The Respondent had informed the applicant that he could be directed towards the ‘closed reception procedure’ (extension of the accelerated asylum procedure because further research is necessary; during this procedure the asylum seeker will be in detention, no maximum term of detention is fixed by law, ed.) because of his medical complaints. Since the applicant did not take this offer, the court did not see why the Secretary of State for Justice could not choose to process the asylum application in the 48hours procedure.
Outcome:
The appeal is dismissed.
Observations/comments:
As of July 2010, the 48 hours-procedure (the accelerated procedure) was abolished. Since this date, the general asylum procedure in the Netherlands takes 8 days, from registration of the application until its rejection or approval by the authorities. Every applicant starts off in the general asylum procedure, which is the short procedure. Some applicants move in to the prolonged asylum procedure, which takes up to 6 months.