Netherlands - Council of State Administrative Law Division, 26 November 2015, 201507248/1/V3
| Country of Decision: | Netherlands |
| Court name: | ABRvS (Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak Raad van State) |
| Date of decision: | 26-11-2015 |
| Citation: | 201507248/1/V3 |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
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. |
|
Crime against humanity
Description
"Any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack: (a) Murder; (b) Extermination; (c) Enslavement; (d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population; (e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law; (f) Torture; (g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity; (h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court; (i) Enforced disappearance of persons; (j) The crime of apartheid; (k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health." |
|
Delay
Description
Failure to act within a certain period of time: often with regard to undue, unreasonable or unjustifiable delay. According to Article 23 of the Asylum Procedures Directive, Member States must process applications for asylum in an examination procedure in accordance with the basic principles and guarantees of Chapter II of the Asylum Procedures Directive ensuring that such a procedure is concluded as soon as possible, without prejudice to an adequate and complete examination. Where a decision cannot be taken within six months, Member States shall ensure that the applicant concerned is either: (a) informed of the delay; or (b) receives, upon his/her request, information on the time-frame within which the decision on his/her application is to be expected (but such information is not an obligation for the Member State to take a decision within that time-frame.) |
|
Detention
Description
"Restriction on freedom of movement through confinement that is ordered by an administrative or judicial authority(ies) in order that another procedure may be implemented. In an EU asylum context, this means confinement of an asylum seeker by a Member State within a particular place, where the applicant is deprived of his or her freedom of movement. This may occur during any stage of or throughout the asylum process, from the time an initial application is made up to the point of removal of an unsuccessful asylum seeker. In an EU Return context, Member States may only detain or keep in a detention facility a third-country national who is the subject of return procedures in order to prepare the return and/or carry out the removal process, in particular when: (a) there is a risk of absconding; or (b) the third-country national concerned avoids or hampers the preparation of return or the removal process. Any detention shall be for as short a period as possible and only maintained as long as removal arrangements are in progress and executed with due diligence." |
|
Effective remedy (right to)
Description
A general principle of EU law now set out in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights: "Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with the conditions laid down in this Article.” “[It] is based on Article 13 of the ECHR: ‘Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.’ However, in Community law the protection is more extensive since it guarantees the right to an effective remedy before a court. The Court of Justice enshrined the principle in its judgment of 15 May 1986 (Case 222/84 Johnston [1986] ECR 1651; see also judgment of 15 October 1987, Case 222/86 Heylens [1987] ECR 4097 and judgment of 3 December 1992, Case C-97/91 Borelli [1992] ECR I-6313. According to the Court, this principle also applies to the Member States when they are implementing Community law. The inclusion of this precedent in the Charter is not intended to change the appeal system laid down by the Treaties, and particularly the rules relating to admissibility. This principle is therefore to be implemented according to the procedures laid down in the Treaties. It applies to the institutions of the Union and of Member States when they are implementing Union law and does so for all rights guaranteed by Union law.” |
|
First country of asylum
Description
"A country can be considered to be a first country of asylum for a particular applicant for asylum if: (a) he/she has been recognised in that country as a refugee and he/she can still avail himself/herself of that protection; or (b) he/she otherwise enjoys sufficient protection in that country, including benefiting from the principle of non-refoulement; provided that he/she will be re-admitted to that country." Member States may consider an application for asylum as inadmissible if a country which is not a Member State is considered as a first country of asylum for the applicant. |
|
Humanitarian considerations
Description
“Factors relevant to the consideration of a decision to grant humanitarian protection. Humanitarian protection is a concept that encompasses all activities aimed at obtaining full respect for the rights of the individual in accordance with the letter and spirit of human rights, refugee and international humanitarian law. Protection involves creating an environment conducive to respect for human beings, preventing and/or alleviating the immediate effects of a specific pattern of abuse, and restoring dignified conditions of life through reparation, restitution and rehabilitation.” The grant of permission tothird country nationals or stateless persons toremain in Member States for reasons not due to a need for international protection but on a discretionary basis on compassionate or humanitarian groundsis not currently harmonised at a European level. However per Art. 15 Dublin II Reg., even where it is not responsible under the criteria set out in the Regulatiosn, aMember Statemay bring together family members, as well as other dependent relatives, on humanitarian grounds based in particular on family or cultural considerations. |
|
Indirect refoulement
Description
The duty of a State of non-refoulement under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention can include “indirect” or “chain-refoulement” via an alleged “safe third county”. According to the UNHCR,“indirect removal of a refugee from one county to a third country which subsequently will send the refugee onward to the place of feared persecution constitutes refoulement, for which both countries would bear joint responsibility.” |
|
Relevant Facts
Description
An assessment of an application for international protection must take into account all relevant facts, including those relating to: the country of origin at the time of taking a decision on the application, including laws and regulations of the country of origin and the manner in which they are applied; relevant statements and documentation presented by the applicant; the individual position and personal circumstances of the applicant; and other matters set out in Article 4 of the Qualification Directive |
|
Relevant Documentation
Description
“All documentation at the applicants disposal regarding the applicant's age, background, including that of relevant relatives, identity, nationality(ies), country(ies) and place(s) of previous residence, previous asylum applications, travel routes, identity and travel documents and the reasons for applying for international protection.” |
|
Well-founded fear
Description
One of the central elements of the refugee definition under Article 1A ofthe1951 Refugee Convention is a “well-founded fear of persecution”: "Since fear is subjective, the definition involves a subjective element in the person applying for recognition as a refugee. Determination of refugee status will therefore primarily require an evaluation of the applicant's statements rather than a judgement on the situation prevailing in his country of origin. To the element of fear--a state of mind and a subjective condition--is added the qualification ‘well-founded’. This implies that it is not only the frame of mind of the person concerned that determines his refugee status, but that this frame of mind must be supported by an objective situation. The term ‘well-founded fear’ therefore contains a subjective and an objective element, and in determining whether well-founded fear exists, both elements must be taken into consideration." |
|
Country of origin
Description
The country (or countries) which are a source of migratory flows and of which a migrant may have citizenship. In refugee context, this means the country (or countries) of nationality or, for stateless persons, of former habitual residence. |
|
Nationality
Description
One of the grounds of persecution specified in the refugee definition per Article 1A ofthe1951 Refugee Convention. Nationality can be defined generally as the legal bond between a person and a State which does not indicate the person's ethnic origin. According to the Qualification Directive, when considered as a reason for persecution, the concept of nationality is not confined to citizenship or lack thereof and, in particular, includes membership of a group determined by its cultural, ethnic, or linguistic identity, common geographical or political origins or its relationship with the population of another State |
|
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. |
|
Responsibility for examining application
Description
The Member State responsible for examining an application for asylum is determined in accordance with the criteria contained in Chapter III Dublin II Regulation in the order in which they are set out in that Chapter and on the basis of the situation obtaining when the asylum seeker first lodged his application with a Member State. |
|
Dublin Transfer
Description
"The transfer of responsibility for the examination of an asylum application from one Member State to another Member State. Such a transfer typically also includes the physical transport of an asylum applicant to the Member State responsible in cases where the applicant is in another Member State and/or has lodged an application in this latter Member State (Article 19(3) of Council Regulation (EC) 343/2003). The determination of the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application is done on the basis of objective and hierarchical criteria, as laid out in Chapter III of Council Regulation (EC) 343/2003." |
|
Request to take back
Description
Formal request by one Member State that another Member State take back, under the conditions laid down in Article 20 of the Dublin II Regulation: - an applicant whose application is under examination and who is in the territory of the requesting Member State without permission; - an applicant who has withdrawn the application under examination and made an application in the requesting Member State; - a third-country national whose application it has rejected and who is in the territory of the requesting Member State without permission. |
|
Return
Description
"In the context of the Return Directive (2008/115/EC), the process of going back - whether in voluntary compliance with an obligation to return, or enforced - to: - one's country of origin; or - a country of transit in accordance with EU or bilateral readmission agreements or other arrangements; or - another third country, to which the third-country national concerned voluntarily decides to return and in which he/she will be accepted. There are subcategories of return which can describe the way the return is implemented, e.g. voluntary, forced, assisted and spontaneous return; as well as sub-categories which describe who is participating in the return, e.g. repatriation (for refugees)." |
Headnote:
This case is concerned with whether the Secretary of State for Justice has discharged or breached his duty of care with regards to the risk of refoulement in an asylum application.
Facts:
This summary concerns an appeal by an asylum applicant against the judgment of the Court of Den Hague of 8 September 2015 in case no. 15/15138. In a decision dated 6 August 2015, the applicant’s application for a temporary asylum-related residence permit was not taken into consideration by the Secretary of State for Justice. In its judgment dated 8 September 2015, the Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the previous decision. The applicant asserted that her application should have been taken into consideration by the Secretary of State and that the first appeal should have been granted.
Decision & reasoning:
The applicant asserted that the court incorrectly considered her previous statements as unclear regarding the Secretary of State’s wrongful reliance on the mutual interstate trust principle. She asserted that a transfer to Hungary would amount to a contravention of Articles 3, 5 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) because the asylum procedure in Hungary has been found to be lacking.
Moreover, the applicant asserted that the court incorrectly found that following a transfer to Hungary, the asylum application would automatically be resumed which does not correspond to the amended Hungarian domestic asylum legislation.
Moreover, the case of M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece (application No. 30696/09) clarified that where a proposed transfer is potentially in contravention to Articles 3 and 13, the applicant may support their assertions with general documentation so as to prove reasonable doubt. In this case the applicant presented such documentation proving reasonable doubt as to the potential contravention of the ECHR and thus the Secretary of State had a duty of care, despite the principle of mutual interstate trust, to investigate the circumstances in the proposed destination.
The Council considered and accepted the applicant’s assertion that the Secretary of State did not discharge his duty of care by failing to investigate so as to ascertain the risk of the transferee being exposed to circumstances in violation of Article 3 ECHR. Accordingly, the court was found not to have acknowledged the lack of sufficient motivation for the Secretary of State’s decision. Furthermore, no legal questions or questions of a factual nature were discussed on appeal that could not be settled on the basis of the documents relating to the case.
Therefore the Council of State division decided to grant the appeal. In addition the previous appeal was granted whereas the decisions by the Secretary of State and the court were overturned.
Outcome:
The appeal was granted and both decisions by the Secretary of State and the Court of Den Hague were overturned. The Secretary of state was ordered to pay damages for the amount of €1,960 as an estimation of both appeals worth of court fees and legal costs.
Subsequent proceedings:
A second ruling given by the Council of State on the same day reiterated this finding in Council of State, 201507322/1/V3, Judgment of 26 November 2015.
The findings have been confirmed by the Dutch lower courts, for example Hague District Court VK-15_20035 / VK-15_20036, Decision of 8 December 2015 as well as in a letter from the Secretary of State for Security and Justice on the 4 January 2016.
Observations/comments:
The court clarified that the acceptance by the Hungarian authorities of the readmission application and the requested prejudicial questions were irrelevant to this case.
This case summary was written by Laura Robyn, a LPC student at BPP University.
The summary was proof read by Joanna Oomen a GDL student at BPP University.
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Cited National Legislation:
| Cited National Legislation |
| Netherlands - Algemene wet bestuursrecht (General Administrative Law Act) - Art 3(2) |
| Netherlands - Algemene wet bestuursrecht (General Administrative Law Act) - Art 3(46) |
Cited Cases:
| Cited Cases |
| ECtHR - M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece [GC], Application No. 30696/09 |