Spain: National Court. Chamber of Contentious-Administrative Proceedings n. 5177/2017, 5th December 2017, Appeal No. 234/2017
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. |
|
Personal circumstances of applicant
Description
The range of factors such as background, gender, age, and individual position which must to be taken into account in the assessment of an application for international protection per Article 4(3)(c) of the Qualification Directive. |
|
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." |
|
Family unity (right to)
Description
“In the context of a Refugee, a right provisioned in Article 23 of Council Directive 2004/83/EC and in Article 8 of Council Directive 2003/9/EC obliging Member States to ensure that family unity can be maintained. Note: There is a distinction from the Right to Family Life. The Right to Family Unity relates to the purpose and procedural aspects of entry and stay for the purpose of reuniting a family, in order to meet the fundamental right enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.” “A right to family unity is inherent in the universal recognition of the family as the fundamental group unit of society, which is entitled to protection and assistance. This right is entrenched in universal and regional human rights instruments and international humanitarian law, and it applies to all human beings, regardless of their status. ….Although there is not a specific provision in the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, the strongly worded Recommendation in the Final Act of the Conference of Plenipotentiaries reaffirms the ‘essential right’ of family unity for refugees.” |
Headnote:
When examining the acceptance of an asylum claim, the authorities have to study whether the testimony of the applicant is based on presumably true facts. Only if it is manifestly false could the admission of this application be denied.
The principle of family unity has to be taken into account regarding the assessment of the circumstances of the applicant, especially since his sister’s application for international protection was accepted.
Facts:
The applicant first asked for asylum on the 16th March 2017 at his arrival at Madrid’s airport, which he flew in from Senegal. Before entering Spanish territory, the applicant destroyed his passport.
On his arrival, he was separated from his sister, who was granted international protection and entered the territory, and he was placed in a juvenile centre during age assessment procedures. Once this process was concluded and he was determined to be an adult, he was released from the centre and able to claim asylum.
His application was denied on the 20th March and he asked for a reassessment of this decision on the 22nd, which was also denied the following day. On the 24th, the applicant appealed these decisions and requested the suspension of his return to Dakar.
As a reason for his escape from his home country, the applicant claimed that he was physically assaulted by his brother in law, especially following an argument where he defended his sister against the practice of FGM that the brother in law wanted to impose to their yet-unborn baby.
Decision & reasoning:
The contested decision was based on the reasoning that the basis of his asylum claim does not fit in any of the legal persecution grounds contained in article 3 of Act 12/2009. It was denied based on article 21.2.a) of the said act in relation with article 25.1.c), as the claim was exclusively based on questions that do not concern the requisites for obtaining the condition of a refugee.
Furthermore, the lower court added that the applicant does not refer to any concrete grounds when asking for a reassessment of the application. The alleged reasons for persecution do not fit in article 10 of the mentioned Act, as they are directed from a particular individual and not a statal agent. They do not comply with torture either and they should be classified as mere bad treatment from the applicant’s brother-in-law.
According to the Court, during the phase of the process of assessing whether an application should be admitted, the authorities do not have to judge whether there are sufficient grounds for the alleged persecution, but whether the testimony of the applicant is sufficiently credible and not based in manifestly false allegations.
Applying this reasoning, the Court found that the rejection of the applicant’s claim is contrary to the law. His application was made at the same time as his sister’s and based on the same facts. He had been living together in the Gambia and he was financially dependent on her. Following the recommendation made by UNCHR in their report, as well as the provisions of Directive 2011/95, family unity should be respected and taken into account in this case. Therefore, his application should be admitted.
The Court also noted that the use of article 21.2 of Act 12/2009 to deny an application requires prima facie that the cause of denial of asylum is evidently present in the circumstances of the case, a situation that is not present in the case.
Outcome:
Appeal granted.
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Other sources:
National Legislation
Act 12/2009 of 30 October regulating the Right of Asylum and Subsidiary Protection (Ley 12/2009, de 30 de octubre, reguladora del derecho de asilo y de la protección subsidiaria) – Article 3, article 10, article 6, article 40, article 25.1.c), article 25.1.d), article 25.1.f), article 46, article 47, article 14, article 20, article 21, article 8, article 9, article 11, article 12, article 13 and article 7.
Spanish Constitution (Constitución Española. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 29 de diciembre de 1978, núm. 311).
Act 5/1984 of 26 March regulating the right to asylum and refugee status (Ley 5/1984, de 26 de marzo, reguladora del derecho de asilo y de la condición de refugiado) – Article 5.6, article 3 and article 8.
Act 29/1998, of July 13, regulating the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction (Ley 29/1998, de 13 de julio, reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso-administrativa) – article 52.2, article 139.1, article 89.2.
Acr 39/2015, of October 1, on the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (Ley 39/2015, de 1 de octubre, del Procedimiento Administrativo Común de las Administraciones Públicas).
Domestic Case Law cited
Judgment of the National Court n. 273/2014 (Contentious Chamber, Section 2), of February 6, 2014 (appeal n. 457/2014) – (Sentencia de la Audiencia Nacional n. 273/2014 (Sala de lo Contencioso, Sección 2ª), de 6 de febrero de 2014 (recurso n. 457/2012)).
Judgement of the National Court n. 25/2001 (Contentious Chamber, Section 8), of January 11, 2001 (appeal 775/2000) – (Sentencia de la Audiencia Nacional n. 25/2001 (Sala de lo Contencioso, Sección 8ª), de 11 de enero de 2001 (recurso n. 775/2000)).
Supreme Court ruling n. 2368/2002 (Contentious Chamber, Section 6), of April 3, 2002 (appeal 217/1998) – (Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo n. 217/1998 (Sala de lo Contencioso, Sección 6ª), de 3 de abril de 2002 (recurso n. 217/1998)).
Supreme Court ruling n. 1957/2013 (Contentious Chamber, Section 3), of March 27, 2013 (appeal 2429/2012) – (Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo n. 1957/2013 (Sala de lo Contencioso, Sección 3ª), de 27 de marzo de 2013 (recurso n. 2429/2012)).
Supreme Court ruling n. 1971/2013 (Contentious Chamber, Section 3), of March 27, 2013 (appeal n. 2529/2012) – (Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo n. 1971/2013 (Sala de lo Contencioso, Sección 3ª), de 27 de marzo de 2013 (recurso n. 2529/2012)).
Supreme Court ruling n. 15278/1989 (Contentious Chamber, Section 1), of March 4, 1989 (appeal 1883/1988) – (Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo n. 15278/1989 (Sala de lo Contencioso, Sección 1ª), de 4 de marzo de 1989 (recurso n. 1883/1988)).
Supreme Court ruling n. 2411/1989 (Contentious Chamber, Section 1), of April 10, 1989 – (Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo n. 2411/1989 (Sala de lo Contencioso, Sección 1ª), de 10 de abril de 1989).
Supreme Court ruling n. 4357/1989 (Contentious Chamber, Section 1), of July 18, 1989 – (Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo n. 4357/1989 (Sala de lo Contencioso, Sección 1ª), de 18 de julio de 1989).
Supreme Court ruling n. 4091/1998 (Contentious Chamber, Section 7), of June 19, 1998 (appeal n. 52/1997) – (Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo n. 4091/1998 (Sala de lo Contencioso, Sección 7ª), de 19 de junio de 1998 (recurso n. 52/1997)).
Supreme Court ruling n. 1656/2002 (Contentious Chamber, Section 6), of March 2, 2002 (appeal n. 217/1996) – (Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo n. 1656/2000 (Sala de lo Contencioso, Sección 6ª), de 2 de marzo de 2000 (recurso n. 217/1996)).
Supreme Court ruling n. 3405/1988 (Contentious Chamber, Section 1), of May 5, 1988 – (Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo n. 2405/1988 (Sala de lo Contencioso, Sección 1ª), de 9 de mayo de 1988).
Supreme Court ruling n. 6577/1988 (Contentious Chamber, Section 1), of September 28, 1988 – (Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo n. 6577/1988 (Sala de lo Contencioso, Sección 1ª), de 28 de septiembre de 1988).
Supreme Court ruling n. 16328/1991 (Contentious Chamber, Section 3), of May 21, 1991 – (Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo n. 16328/1991 (Sala de lo Contencioso, Sección 3ª), de 21 de mayo de 1991).
Supreme Court ruling n. 19364/1993 (Contentious Chamber, Section 1), of March 30, 1993 (appeal n. 357/1991) – (Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo n. 19364/1993 (Sala de lo Contencioso, Sección 1ª), de 30 de marzo de 1993 (recurso n. 357/1991)).
Supreme Court ruling n. 2158/1993 (Contentious Chamber, Section 1), of March 30, 1993 – (Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo n. 2158/1993 (Sala de lo Contencioso, Sección 1ª), de 30 de marzo de 1993).
Supreme Court ruling n. 21763/1994 (Contentious Chamber, Section 6), of June 23, 1994 (appeal n. 7133/1992) – (Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo n. 21763/1994 (Sala de lo Contencioso, Sección 6ª), de 23 de junio de 1994 (recurso n. 7133/1992)).
Supreme Court ruling n. 4271/2003 (Contentious Chamber, Section 6), of June 19, 2003 (appeal n. 475/1999) – (Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo n. 4271/2003 (Sala de lo Contencioso, Sección 6ª), de 19 de junio de 2003 (recurso n. 475/1999)).
Supreme Court ruling n. 5526/2003 (Contentious Chamber, Section 6), of September 17, 2003 (appeal n. 2091/1999) – (Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo n. 5526/2003 (Sala de lo Contencioso, Sección 6ª), de 17 de septiembre de 2003 (recurso n. 2091/1999)).
Supreme Court ruling n. 6068/2009 (Contentious Chamber, Section 5), of October 9, 2009 (appeal n. 233/2006) – (Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo n. 233/2006 (Sala de lo Contencioso, Sección 5ª), de 9 de octubre de 2009 (recurso n. 233/2006)).
Supreme Court ruling n. 2972/2011 (Contentious Chamber, Section 3), of May 17, 2011 (appeal n. 678/2008) – (Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo n. 2972/2011 (Sala de lo Contencioso, Sección 3ª), de 17 de mayo de 2011 (recurso n. 678/2008)).
Supreme Court ruling n. 1316/2010 (Contentious Chamber, Section 5), of February 24, 2010 (appeal n. 1156/2006) – (Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo n. 1316/2010 (Sala de lo Contencioso, Sección 5ª), de 24 de febrero de 2010 (recurso n. 1156/2006)).
Supreme Court ruling. 5983/2002 (Contentious Chamber, Section 7), of September 20, 2002 (appeal n. 2567/1998) – (Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo n. 5983/2002 (Sala de lo Contencioso, Sección 7ª), de 20 de septiembre de 2002 (recurso n. 2567/1998)).
Supreme Court ruling n. 6012/2013 (Contentious Chamber, Section 3), of December 17, 2013 (appeal n. 3421/2012) – (Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo n. 6012/2013 (Sala de lo Contencioso, Sección 3ª), de 17 de diciembre de 2013 (recurso n. 3421/2012)).
Supreme Court ruling n. 728/2014 (Contentious Chamber, Section 3), of February 28, 2014 (appeal n. 378/2013) – (Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo n. 278 (Sala de lo Contencioso, Sección 3ª), de 28 de febrero de 2014 (recurso n. 378/2013)).
Other Sources cited
UNHCR Report 17th March 2017
UNHCR Report 23th March 2017
United Kingdom, Home Office, Country Policy and Information Note - Gambia: Female genital mutilation (FGM), 14 December 2016, Version 1.0
International Journal of Women's Health - 'Female genital mutilation/cutting: changes and trends in knowledge, attitudes, and practices among health care professionals in The Gambia', 12 April 2016
International Journal of Women’s Health on June, 2013
UNICEF Report on the situation in Gambia, 2016
Huffington Post on August, 2015
Point (Banjul) article on March, 2016
Touray, 2006
UNDP, Women’s Bureau, 2014