ECtHR - K.K.C. v. the Netherlands, Application No. 58964/00, 21 December 2001
| Country of applicant: | Russia |
| Court name: | European Court of Human Rights First Chamber |
| Date of decision: | 21-12-2001 |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
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. |
|
Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
Description
A form of serious harm for the purposes of the granting of subsidiary protection. The Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in Celibici defined cruel or inhuman treatment as ‘an intentional act or omission, that is an act which, judged objectively, is deliberate and not accidental, that causes serious mental or physical suffering or injury or constitutes a serious attack on human dignity.’ “Ill-treatment means all forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including corporal punishment, which deprives the individual of its physical and mental integrity." |
|
Persecution Grounds/Reasons
Description
Per Article 1A ofthe1951 Refugee Convention, one element of the refugee definition is that the persecution feared is “for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion“. Member States must take a number of elements into account when assessing the reasons for persecution as per Article 10 of the Qualification Directive. |
|
Refugee Status
Description
The recognition by a Member State of a third-country national or stateless person as a refugee. |
|
Real risk
Description
In order to be eligible for subsidiary protection, a third country national or stateless person must demonstrate that if returned to his or her country of origin, or in the case of a stateless person, to his or her country of former habitual residence, s/he would face a real risk of serious harm as defined in QD Art. 15 and that s/he is unable, or owing to such risk, unwilling to avail her/himself of the protection of that country. The fact that an applicant has already been subject to persecution or serious harm or to direct threats of such persecution or such harm, is a serious indication of the applicant's well-founded fear of persecution or real risk of suffering serious harm, unless there are good reasons to consider that such persecution or serious harm will not be repeated. |
Headnote:
The present case, which ended in a friendly settlement between the parties, concerned the allegations of a Russian national that he would be exposed to ill-treatment if expelled to Russia.
Facts:
The applicant, a Russian national of Chechen origin, was arrested, detained and accused of treason after his refusal to open fire on Chechen opposition forces. He subsequently escaped and "Chechen army" officials came to his mother’s house on several occasions. He claims having remained in hiding in Chechnya during the subsequent armed conflict between Russian and Chechen forces. He then travelled to the Netherlands and applied for asylum or alternatively a residence permit for compelling reasons of humanitarian nature, which were rejected in the first instance and on appeal. Both Courts doubted the veracity of the applicant’s claim that he had been involved in the capture of a Russian army colonel and therefore feared persecution.
The applicant complained that if expelled to Russia, he would face a real and personal risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3.
Decision & reasoning:
The Court received a declaration by the Government, stating that the two parties had reached a friendly settlement. The Government agreed to grant the applicant a residence permit without restrictions and give him the sum of € 1400 for legal costs incurred in the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights. The Court was satisfied that the settlement was based on respect of human rights as defined in the Convention.
Outcome:
Case struck out of list.
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Cited National Legislation:
| Cited National Legislation |
| Netherlands - Aliens Act Article 33 b |
| Netherlands - Aliens Act Implementation Guidelines ( Vreemdelingencirculaire) 1994 Section A4/4.3.2 |