Case summaries

The Supreme Court considered the appellant’s appeal against the decision by the defendant Secretary of State, by which his application for a Tier 4 student visa had been rejected, on the ground that the applicant had only provided bank statements covering 22 out of the required 28 days. The court held that the refusal of the appellant’s application was unlawful because according to the process instruction the UK Border Agency should not have rejected his application without previously giving the appellant the opportunity to repair the deficit in his evidence. 

The operation of an effective legal system for the detection, prosecution and punishment of acts constituting persecution or serious harm and access to such system by the claimant may not, in a given case, amount to protection. Article 7(2) of the Qualfication Directive is non-prescriptive in nature. The duty imposed on states to take “reasonable steps” imports the concepts of margin of appreciation and proportionality.

Application for annulment of a decision by the Minister of Public Order.

This case concerned special protection status in accordance with the 1951 Refugee Convention andexclusion from protection of those who have committed a serious crime under “common law”. The crime committed by the applicant (attempted murder of the Indian Ambassador in Romania) does not fall within the concepts of “political”, “composite” or “related” crimes, even if it was carried out because of the offender's political opinions or principles, or with the intent of achieving such aims. The implementation of the exclusion clause is not precluded because of the fact that the party has already served the sentence which was imposed. The judgment regarding the applicant having committed a serious criminal offence was justified. The decision was opposed by a minority. Consideration was given to the severity of the persecution the applicant risked suffering should he return to India and non-refoulement was approved, his deportation was given suspensive effect, and he was given temporary leave to remain on humanitarian grounds.

This was an appeal against the decision to transfer the applicant to Hungary despite the applicant’s claim that he had first applied for asylum in Greece. The fact that there were no fingerprints on EURODAC did not prove the applicant had never been to Greece and according to Article 16(3) Dublin regulation Greece’s responsibility for the application would only expire if the applicant left the European Union for more than 3 months. However, since a deportation to Greece would violate Art 3 ECHR, the applicant should be admitted to the asylum procedure in Austria.

In the opinion of the appellate court, one of the conditions required under Section 19(1)(i) of the Asylum Act for ruling that there is no need to adjudicate was not fulfilled. Despite the existence of a final decision dismissing the application as manifestly unfounded, it was not possible to agree with the opinion of the administrative authorities, as upheld by the Regional Court, that the facts had not changed substantially.

Partial quashing of the list of safe countries of origin: Armenia, Madagascar, Turkey and Mali (women only) removed from the list

The Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic held that only such threats to life or liberty as are tolerated, encouraged or accompanied by official authority can be regarded as persecution within the meaning of Section 8 of the Asylum Act, while problems with private individuals cannot be a ground for granting asylum, as long as the political system in the country of origin affords citizens the possibility of defending their rights before state authorities.

A group can be considered to be a particular social group when the members of the group share innate characteristics or a common background which cannot be changed, or when they share a characteristic or belief that is so fundamental to their identity or conscience that a given individual should not be compelled to renounce it, and the group is seen to be different by the surrounding society. Depending on the circumstances in the country of origin, a particularsocial group may be based on a common characteristic of sexual orientation, but such orientation may not be understood to include acts that are considered punishable under a specific regulation.

This case involved the UK’s attempted deportation of an Indian citizen and leader of the Sikh separatist movement who lived in the UK and was allegedly a national security threat. Because of the risk of ill-treatment, the Court found the UK would breach Art. 3 if he were deported to India, in conjunction with a violation of Art. 13. Because he was not able to review the lawfulness of his prolonged detention, the Court also found a violation of Art. 5 (4).