Case summaries

The High Administrative Court wrongly found that returnees without a family network generally could not return to Kabul as an internal protection alternative. The High Administrative Court was obliged to examine whether the applicant was the owner of property which might enable him to safeguard his means of existence upon return.

The involvement in a State regular police force does not constitute, in itself, the expression of political opinions or the membership of a particular social group.

The case concerned an appeal before the High National Court against the decision of the Spanish Asylum and Refugee Office (Ministry of Interior) rejecting an application for refugee status based on the fact that the applicant entered the EU through Greece. Therefore, following the Dublin II Regulation, Greece would be the responsible country for examining the application for asylum. The High National Court stated that after passing the six month period established by Art 19.3 of the Regulation CE/343/2003 without executing the transfer of the applicant to a Member State considered responsible for the examination, Spain was the responsible country for the case.

This case concerned the application of the principle of family unity, where the sponsor had been granted asylum and subsequently acquired the nationality of the country of refuge.

This case concerns the criteria for determining a serious individual threat and the necessary level of indiscriminate violence in an internal armed conflict.In order for Art 15 (c) of the Qualification Directive to apply, it is necessary to determine the level of indiscriminate violence in the territory of an internal armed conflict. When determining the necessary level of indiscriminate violence, not only acts which contravene international law, but any acts of violence which put life and limb of civilians at risk, have to be taken into account. In the context of Art 4.4 of the Qualification Directive, an internal nexus must exist between the serious harm (or threats thereof) suffered in the past, and the risk of future harm.

The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that it could not uphold the Regional Court’s decision regarding the Applicant’s credibility given the specific nature of the case, which concerned an unaccompanied foreign minor who  found himself in a completely different cultural and social environment, a factor which must be taken into account when assessing his application for asylum and his credibility.

This case concerned the treatment of evidence from unaccompanied minors. The applicant was an unaccompanied minor from Afghanistan. He claimed asylum on the basis of a fear of persecution both by the Taliban and the Afghan government. The Refugee Appeals Tribunal refused his refugee appeal on the grounds that the applicant was not credible and that his claim was not objectively well-founded. The Court found that the Tribunal Member had engaged in impermissible speculation and conjecture in relation to the applicant’s prospect of State protection in Afghanistan, that the Tribunal Member had imputed expectations to the applicant without any consideration of the applicant’s level of maturity at the time, and that the Tribunal Member had failed to consider whether the applicant’s fears in relation to the Taliban were realistic having regard to his age, maturity and the particular circumstances in Northern Afghanistan.

The situation in Logar province in Afghanistan can be characterised as an internal armed conflict. Therefore, the applicant as a member of the civilian population is at a significant risk in terms of Art 15 (c) of the Qualification Directive.

Article 29(1), introductory paragraph and (b) of the Foreigners Act (2000) (which provides protection in the Netherlands against a potential breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights) provides for the same protection as Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive. The latter article therefore does not amend the law.

Article 29(1), introductory paragraph and (b) of the Foreigners Act (2000) (which provides protection in the Netherlands against a potential breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights) provides for the same protection as Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive. The latter article therefore does not amend the law.