Case summaries

The High Court held that the Minister is entitled in a subsidiary protection application to rely on the findings made during the refugee status determination process unless these findings are legally wrong or the reasoning is defective. The Applicant cannot “collaterally attack” the findings of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT) (which have not otherwise been challenged) through a judicial review of the subsidiary protection decision. The lapse of time amounting to almost one year between the oral hearing by the RAT and the issuing of its decision, could not be challenged in the context of seeking to review the subsequent subsidiary protection decision, and the reliance by the Minister on the RAT’s use of an expert medical report was permissible.

In cases concerning countries which are not democratic and secure decision-makers must not only look to ratified international treaties as evidence of the human rights situation. It is necessary to examine carefully how international obligations and the legal system as a whole are applied in practice.

A residence permit granted on the grounds of subsidiary protection and an aliens passport granted under the previous Aliens Act (378/1991)31 § to a Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) national and his family members could not be withdrawn when the family moved from Finland without a prior inquiry into whether or not there were existing grounds for withdrawing the need for subsidiary protection in accordance with the Aliens Act (301/2004) 107 § 2nd clause.

Given the situation of particular vulnerability and constraint of the applicant, a former child soldier from the DRC, there is no reason to apply any of the exclusion clauses of Article 1F of the 1951 Refugee Convention to him.

Before granting subsidiary protection under Article L.712-1 c) Ceseda [which corresponds to Article 15 (c) of the Qualification Directive] to an applicant originating from the Congo, the Court had to inquire whether the situation of general insecurity which prevails in this country results from a situation of internal or international armed conflict.

This case concerned the consideration of expert medical evidence by asylum decision makers and the link with the assessment of credibility. The Court found that the Refugee Appeals Tribunal failed adequately to consider strong medical evidence relating to torture in assessing the overall credibility of the applicant’s refugee claim. The Court also found that it is incumbent upon the asylum decision maker to give reasons for rejecting the contents of medico-legal reports, especially those with a high probative value.

In this case the Council of State had to determine whether the evidence presented by the applicant in relation to his alleged absence from EU territory for more than 3 months was sufficient to apply Article 4(5) of the Dublin Regulation. The Council held such evidence should include not only proof of absence itself but also proof of the exit and entry dates in relation to the period of absence, which was missing in this case. 

This case concerned a challenge to the Tribunal’s conduct of a asylum appeal hearing (alleged pre-judging of the case against the applicant due to an argument with the applicant’s lawyer) as well as the Tribunal’s reasoning (alleged flaws in credibility analysis and failure to share investigative burden with the applicant, as required by UNHCR handbook). The challenge was unsuccessful.

The High Court considered the duty to inquire before authorising detention and fast tracking of asylum seekers and the liability of the state for the failures of contractors and sub contractors.