Case summaries

There are "good reasons" within the meaning of Art 4.4 of the Qualification Directive to consider that the persecution of ethnic Chechens from Chechnya which was solely based on membership of the group will not be repeated. The standard of Art 4.4 of the Qualification Directive has now replaced the concept of "sufficient safety from persecution" as developed in German case law for refugees who had been subject to persecution before they left their country of origin. 

Gender may be a feature defining a social group, so women can be a particular social group.

Violence, beating, and bullying constitute persecution, even if these acts are committed by the local community or individual members thereof.

It is vital to determine whether the applicant obtained help from the state when she requested it or whether there was a genuine (and not just theoretical) opportunity to seek protection.

This case was an appeal against the decision of the Polish Refugee Board on refusal to accord refugee status on the grounds that the application was manifestly unfounded application, and on granting a permit for tolerated stay. The lack of grounds for an application does not mean that the case should not be examined on its merits.

When assessing a subsequent application, the authority may find that, in the framework of the new assertions of the interested party, the application is manifestly unfounded. The authority has the right to reach such a conclusion provided that the application is first examined in the context of its contents and in the context of the evidence cited by the Applicant.

The authority is also obliged to examine the case initiated by the subsequent application in light of the progress made, if any, in the case concerning the previously submitted (first) application for refugee status.

The Council of State ruled that significant similarities between accounts that were being presented by different asylum seekers with the same nationality, ethnic origin and provenance, who applied for asylum in the same period of time, was certainly remarkable, even suspicious, but that this suspicion alone does not  suffice to establish fraud by the applicants.

This case examines the differences between the procedure for examining a claim for asylum and the procedure for examining the application of exclusion clauses.

Traumatised people and those who have suffered otherwise psychologically and physically from flight behave differently when giving evidence compared with healthy people. This can mean that the full submissions relevant to asylum are not provided at the start of the proceedings or the traumatisation itself is not mentioned. These circumstances are to be taken into account during the ban on new evidence.

Members of a family, who are Russian citizens of Chechen ethnicity, who originate from Chechnya, can avail of internal protection (in the context of persecution by non-state actors, Section 60 (1) sentence (4) (c) of the Residence Act in conjunction with Art 8 of the Qualification Directive) in areas outside Chechnya, if one family member (in this instance the wife) possesses a new Russian internal passport, which is an important requirement for registration.

Thirteen applicants from Georgia and Russia (of Chechen origin) alleged that their extradition to Russia, where capital punishment was not abolished, exposed them to the risk of death, torture or ill-treatment contrary to Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. The applicants also alleged that they had been subject to violence and ill-treatment by fifteen members of the Georgian Ministry of Justice’s special forces in Tbilisi Prison no.5., on the night of 3 and 4 October 2002. Their legal representatives asserted that Mr Aziev, one of the extradited applicants, had died as a result of ill-treatment inflicted on him. The applicants also complained of violations of Article 2 and 3, Article 5 §§ 1, 2 and 4, Article 13 in conjunction with articles 2 and 3, Article 34, Articles 2, 3 and 6 §§ 1,2 and 3 and Article 38 § 1 of the Convention. 

This decision upheld the decision of the District Court in J. as regards the legal inadmissibility of extraditing a foreigner. The decision to accord refugee status was taken by a competent French authority and is binding within the territory of Poland, where the foreigner, who is sought by the Russian authorities, was detained. Poland recognises the decisions of other states to accord refugee status to foreigners and grants such foreigners the same degree and scope of legal protection as it would in the case of a foreigner granted protection by a competent Polish authority.