Luxembourg - Administrative Tribunal, 4th Chamber, 39139a, 16 June 2017
| Country of Decision: | Luxembourg |
| Country of applicant: | Kosovo |
| Court name: | Administrative Tribunal |
| Date of decision: | 16-06-2017 |
| Citation: | 39139a |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Safe country of origin
Description
"A country where, on the basis of the legal situation, the application of the law within a democratic system and the general political circumstances, it can be shown that there is generally and consistently no persecution as defined in Article 9 of Directive 2004/83/EC, no torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and no threat by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict. In making this assessment, account is taken, inter alia, of the extent to which protection is provided against persecution or mistreatment by: (a) the relevant laws and regulations of the country and the manner in which they are applied; (b) observance of the rights and freedoms laid down in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and/or the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights and/or the Convention against Torture, in particular the rights from which derogation cannot be made under Article 15(2) of the said European Convention; (c) respect of the non-refoulement principle according to the Geneva Convention; (d) provision for a system of effective remedies against violations of these rights and freedoms.” |
Headnote:
If the applicant comes from a “safe” country, they must be able to prove that there is no protection as understood in the 1951 Geneva Convention, otherwise his application will be rejected.
Facts:
The applicant lodged an application for international protection on 03 October 2016.
On 08 February 2018, the Minister notified the applicant of the rejection of his application along with a decision stating that the applicant had to leave the territory within 30 days.
Decision & reasoning:
The tribunal declared that if the Government found a country “safe”, then it fell on the applicant to prove why it was not safe for them (based on serious reasons).
More precisely, the applicant must establish that there is no protection available in the State in question according to the 1951 Geneva Convention; this could be because of inaction or the incapacity of the national authorities, in this case for Kosovo.
The judge found that the case did not contain sufficient proof to show that there was an absence of protection; that the police forces had committed wrong or negligent activities was not sufficient to state that all the police forces and the overall security forces of the country were guilty of the same behavior. Additionally, the judge stated that if the applicant was not able to speak with the police, then they should have spoken with other institutions.
Outcome:
The appeal was rejected.
Observations/comments:
The original version of this case summary was completed by Passerell a.s.b.l.
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Cited National Legislation:
| Cited National Legislation |
| Luxembourg - o Law of 29 August 2015 |