Case summaries

The applicant came from a district in Afghanistan, which according to up-to-date country of origin information, also contained areas judged as being safe. When considering internal protection for subsidiary forms of international protection, the decision maker must also consider whether or not the applicant is able to reach these areas safely. The roads could not be considered safe and the other presented routes were also not considered feasible for the applicant. As the applicant could not resort to internal protection elsewhere, he was granted a residence permit on the grounds of humanitarian protection in accordance with section 88 a § of the Aliens’ Act.

The Court found that the province of Ghazni, Afghanistan was still unstable and unsafe for the local population due to the presence of an internal armed conflict. However the security situation in Kabul had not deteriorated to the extent to be classified as an internal armed conflict.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the Tribunal must make a best interest of the child determination in considering an asylum appeal made by an unaccompanied minor. Further, that although the Secretary of State has a duty to trace the applicant’s family under the Reception Conditions Directive, this duty exists independently of the obligation to appropriately consider an asylum claim. Therefore the Secretary of State’s failure to act on the basis of the duty is not a ground on which an asylum appeal could be allowed.  

This case concerned exclusion and confirmed that Art 12.2 of the Qualification Directive, should be interpreted so that the determining authority must perform an individual examination of the applicant’s case and assess the individual responsibility according to the objective and subjective criteria, as set out in the judgment of Germany v B and D.  In such cases, the burden of proof does not rest with the applicant but on the determining authority.

The applicant, being a young, single man and fit for work, is at no substantial individual risk, neither in his home province Parwan nor in Kabul. Therefore, it can remain undecided if the conflict in Afghanistan constitutes an internal armed conflict. 

This case examined the compatibility of the Dublin II Regulation with the European Convention on Human Rights regarding transfers to Greece under the Dublin II Regulation. The Court found that there was a violation of Article 3 ECHR by the Greece Government because of the applicant’s conditions of detention, violation of Article 3 ECHR by Greece concerning the applicant’s living conditions in Greece, violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3 ECHR against Greece because of the deficiencies in the asylum procedure followed in the applicant’s case and the risk of his expulsion to Afghanistan without any serious examination of the merits of his asylum application and without any access to an effective remedy. The Court also found in relation to Belgium that there was a violation of Article 3 by sending the applicant back to Greece and exposing him to risks linked to the deficiencies in the asylum procedure in that State, also held against Belgium a violation of Article 3 for sending him to Greece and exposing him to detention and living conditions there that were in breach of that ECHR article. The Court also found a violation of Article 13 ECHR taking in conjunction with Article 3 ECHR against Belgium.

The case involves analysis of Art 5 of the Qualification directive. The applicant converted to Christianity in Ireland.

The Court stated that when analysing the behaviour of an applicant in the country of asylum, in this case conversion to Christianity, the issue is how such behaviour would be considered in the country of origin. Also, that while the state is entitled to view some claims based on sur place activities with a heightened degree of scepticism, the question involves whether, objectively, the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution.

The Court granted leave to the applicant for judicial review of the decision of the Minister for Justice to issue a deportation order.

In the opinion of the appeal court, the fact that the defendant disregarded the documents submitted by the applicant in support of his request for an application of Article 3(2) of the Dublin Regulation, and omitted to present an argument in the decision as to why it had not upheld the application, fails to satisfy the requirements of the generally accepted legal principles of administrative procedure, because the outcomes of these actions were not assessed and justified in the decision.

Country of origin information can verify a situation in which the risk of persecution can exceptionally be considered to be proved without substantiating the personal circumstances of the applicant. The danger of the harm is real, and complies with the requirements of subsidiary protection.

The Court considered how to assess whether an applicant’s activities for insurgent groups in Afghanistan could constitute terrorism. It further considered whether attacks upon United Nations Security Council mandated forces, such as ISAF in Afghanistan, were acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations, justifying exclusion from the 1951 Refugee Convention under Article 1F(c).