Czech Republic – Regional Court in Prague, 14 August 2008, O.S. v Ministry of Interior, 48 Az 57/2008

Facts:

The applicant claimed asylum immediately after his arrival at the airport in the Czech Republic. He claimed that he had refused to undergo obligatory military service in Turkey as he would have been forced to fight against other Kurds. As evidence supporting his claim he pointed to his political activities with the DPT party and connected his political activity and nationality to incidents (particularly detention) that he experienced. The Ministry of Interior (MOI) rejected his claim as conditions for granting protection were not fulfilled. The MOI relied in particular on a specific piece of country of origin information – a report of the European Commission evaluating Turkey as potential member of the EU. The applicant appealed to the Regional Court.

Decision & reasoning:

The Regional Court concluded that MOI did not assess the facts sufficiently. The country of origin information was not up to date and accurate. Regarding the assessment of subsidiary protection, the MOI had relied on information that was approximately a year old and a report of the European Commission that should not have been used at all. According to the Court, this was a political document and the assessment of the situation in Turkey presented in this report was biased.

Outcome:

The appeal was successful and decision of the MOI dismissed.

Subsequent proceedings:

The MOI appealed against the decision of the Regional Court to Supreme Administrative Court (SAC), however this appeal was dismissed. The SAC noted that country of origin (COI) information must be, as much as it is possible: 1) relevant, 2) reliable and balanced, 3) up-to-date and verified from various sources and 4) transparent and traceable. In this case these conditions were not fulfilled as the COI was old, especially in the view of the development of a Kurdish separatist conflict in 2007. The main source of COI, the report from the European Commission, could be used but only as a supporting document, as it is highly connected to the purpose for which it has been written and it was written in diplomatic language. To be relied on as evidence, it needs to be used with extreme caution.

Observations/comments:

Decision of the Regional court Prague n. 48 Az 57/2008, decision of the Supreme administrative Court n. 1 Azs & 105/2008-81 available at www.nssoud.cz

The Court also noted that the MOI confused the principle of reasonable fear of persecution with persecution that had already been carried out. To establish a reasonable fear of persecution it does not have to be proven the person already has been persecuted.