Case summaries

The Office of Immigration and Nationality (OIN) rejected an application for asylum and did not assess the risk of serious harm because the applicant was deemed not credible. The Metropolitan Court found this decision unlawful and ordered that the risk of serious harm be analysed in a new procedure. Furthermore, the Metropolitan Court found the assessment of non-refoulement unlawful, since all the available country information assessed concerned Serbia, however, the applicant's country of origin was Kosovo.

Vendetta constitutes a serious harm falling within the scope of subsidiary protection.

This case concerned an appeal against a decision of the Ministry of Interior (MOI) refusing a claim for international protection from a Kosovan applicant who argued that his special skill as a kick boxer would place him within the meaning of a particular social group and that he should be afforded the protection within the Refugee Convention. It was found that the applicant did not belong to any particular social group and he could find protection in his country of origin.

While Kosovan legislation prohibits any discrimination based on sexual orientation since 2004, persons who publicly acknowledge their homosexuality and demonstrate it in their external behavior regularly face de facto harassment and discrimination, without being able to avail themselves of the protection of the authorities. They constitute a particular social group.

If a Member Sate has issued a visa that enables an applicant to enter its territory and that visa has expired less than six months previously, that Member State is responsible for the examination of the applicant’s asylum application as long as the applicant has not left the territory of the EU Member States. In this case, the visa issued by Slovenian authorities expired only 5 days before the asylum application was made in France. Slovenia was, therefore, the responsible Member State under Art 9(4) Dublin Regulation.

The question as to whether or not an armed conflict existed has to be answered according to humanitarian law (common Art 3 of the Geneva Convention and the second additional protocol).

In assessing whether an applicant could obtain internal protection to avoid persecution, decision makers should consider whether it would be unreasonable or unduly harsh to expect the applicant to relocate to another part of their country. Decision makers should not make the assessment by comparing the conditions in the area of internal relocation to international human rights law standards or the conditions in the country of refuge. Rather, the starting point should be the guidance contained in the UNHCR Guidelines on International Protection (July 2003). Where the persecution emanated from the state all relevant factors had to be considered. It could not be said that there was no option of an internal relocation alternative on the basis of the presumption that the state can act throughout its territory.