France - CRR, Plenary session, 4 March 2005, Miss T., n°489014
| Country of Decision: | France |
| Country of applicant: | Turkey |
| Court name: | Refugee Appeals Board / Commission des recours des réfugiés (CRR) |
| Date of decision: | 04-03-2005 |
| Citation: | CRR, SR, 4 mars 2005, Mlle T., n°489014 |
| Additional citation: | Commission des recours des réfugiés, Sections réunies, 4 mars 2005, Mlle T., n°489014 |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
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. |
|
Membership of a particular social group
Description
One of the grounds of persecution specified in the refugee definition per Article 1A ofthe1951 Refugee Convention. According to the Qualification Directive, membership of a particular social group means members who share an innate characteristic, or a common background that cannot be changed, or share a characteristic or belief that is so fundamental to identity or conscience that a person should not be forced to renounce it, and that group has a distinct identity in the relevant country, because it is perceived as being different by the surrounding society. Depending on the circumstances in the country of origin, a particular social group might include a group based on a common characteristic of sexual orientation. Sexual orientation cannot be understood to include acts considered to be criminal in accordance with national law of the Member States: Gender related aspects might be considered, without by themselves alone creating a presumption for the applicability of this concept. |
Headnote:
In the conditions which currently prevail in some rural areas in Eastern Turkey, the attitude of women of Kurdish origin who want to escape from a forced marriage is perceived by society and the authorities as an infringement of their customs, these women are therefore subjected to persecution committed with the assent of the population. Women who refuse forced marriage in these areas form a group whose members, by reasons of common characteristics which define them in the eyes of Turkish society, are likely to face persecution against which the authorities are unable to provide protection.
Facts:
The applicant, from Turkey of Kurdish origin and of Muslim religion, went to live in a village with her grandmother at the age of 15 following the death of her parents She refused to be subject to a marriage which was arranged by her grandmother. She was confined to the house. Her uncles beat and threatened her in order to force her to accept. The mayor of the village exerted pressure on her. She managed to escape Turkey with the help of a relative living in France and she applied for asylum in France.
The French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (Ofpra) rejected her asylum application. She challenged this negative decision before the Cour Nationale du Droit d’Asile (National Asylum Court) CRR/CNDA.
Decision & reasoning:
As a principle, the CRR/CNDA stated that in the conditions which currently prevail in some rural areas in Eastern Turkey, the attitude of women of Kurdish origin who want to escape from a forced marriage is perceived by society and the authorities as an infringement of their customs, these women are therefore subject to persecution committed with the assent of the population; that, in particular, the perpetrators of “honour crimes” are seldom prosecuted and only incur light sanctions applied by the courts; that women who refuse forced marriage in these areas form a group whose members, by reasons of common characteristics which define them in the eyes of the Turkish society, are likely to face persecution against which the authorities are unable to provide protection.
In the present case, the CRR/CNDA concluded however that the alleged facts could not be considered as established and the fears as well-founded.
Outcome:
The claim was rejected.
Observations/comments:
Several instances of application of this principle in recent CNDA decisions, for example in CNDA, 28 septembre 2009, Mlle A., n°636702 (recognition of refugee status). The definition has evolved in more recent CNDA decisions (CNDA, 23 December 2010, Miss D., n°09011388).
NB: The CNDA (National Asylum Court) was called CRR (“Commission des recours des réfugiés”, Refugee Appeals Board) until the Act n°2007-1631 of 20 November 2007.