France - Council of State, 17 January 2011, Mr. A., n°316678
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Exclusion from protection
Description
Exclusion from being a refugee on any of the grounds set out in Article 12 of the Qualification Directive or exclusion from being eligible for subsidiary protection on any of the grounds set out in Article 17 of the Qualification Directive. |
|
Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN
Description
Extreme activity with an international dimension committed by persons who have been in positions of power in a state or state-like entity and which attacks the very basis of the international community's coexistence. May include crimes capable of affecting international peace, security and peaceful relations between states, as well as serious and sustained violations of human rights. |
Headnote:
When applying the exclusion clause of Article 1F(c) of the 1951 Refugee Convention, the Court has to inquire into the degree of personal involvement of the applicant in acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Facts:
The asylum application of Mr. A., an Iraqi national, was rejected by the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (Ofpra). On appeal, the National Asylum Court/Cour nationale du droit d’asile (CNDA) rejected his claim and excluded him from refugee status on the basis of Article 1F(c) of the 1951 Refugee Convention. The applicant requested the Council of State to quash the decision of the CNDA.
Decision & reasoning:
The Council of State recalled the provisions of Article 1F(c) of the 1951 Refugee Convention.
The Council of State considered that the CNDA made a legal error by founding its decision on the conclusion that Mr. A. was personally guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations based on the insincerity of his statements and on the fact that he never dissociated himself from Saddam Hussein’s regime, as well as on the ground that he could not have ignored the fate of the political opponents when he took part in intelligence activities, without inquiring whether his participation in these activities could, in his personal case, amount to acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Outcome:
The decision of the CNDA was quashed. The case was referred back to the CNDA.
Observations/comments:
The CJEU, in a decision dating from 9 November 2010 (CJEU, 9 November 2010, Germany vs. B, C-57/09 and Germany vs. D, C-101/09), also recalled the requirement of a personal responsibility when applying the exclusion clause.