Case summaries

The French National Asylum Court (the “CNDA”)  must assess whether or not the applicant should be granted refugee status or, failing that, subsidiary protection,taking into account all the factual on the basis of the circumstances which are known to the CNDA when it rules. In order to assess the accuracy of the facts reported by an applicant, the CNDA must take into account all evidence presented by an applicant in support of his application. In particular, when an applicant produces circumstantial evidence relating to the alleged risks that he is likely to face if he returns to his country of origin, the CNDA must – after assessing the credibility of such evidence and analysing it in light of the reported facts – assess the potential risks  which the facts reveal and, as the case may be, indicate the elements that led the CNDA to consider these risks to be not sufficiently serious. 

The French authorities’ failure to conduct an adequate inquiry into the Applicant’s medical evidence resulted their dismissal of the credibility of the Tamil applicant, who, according to the ECtHR, would face a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 if returned to Sri Lanka.

The final determination by an administrative court which quashed a decision returning an individual and determining the country of return on the grounds that the individual had substantiated the fear of persecution in the country of return, necessitated the admissibility before the asylum courts of an application for the matter to be re-examined. Based on this judgment, the National Asylum Court (CNDA) therefore had to re-examine all the facts submitted to it for determination.

In this case the Tribunal considered the situation of refugee’s fiancé(e)s, who are not covered by the provisions relating to spouses and children. In general their exclusion is unlikely to be proportionate and their claim should succeed under Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Exclusion from refugee status of an Applicant who had carried out attacks against the Sri Lankan army in the name of the LTTE, a movement included on the list of terrorist organisations as decided by the Council of the EU, during peace-time, with full knowledge, without coercion and when he was over the age of majority.

The refusal to grant a right of residence to a third-country national who is a family member of a Union citizen must not lead in fact to the obligation for the latter to leave the territory not only of the Member State of which he is a national but also that of the Union as a whole.

Since the situation of generalised violence which prevailed in Sri Lanka ended with the military defeat of LTTE combatants in May 2009, the only valid ground for claiming subsidiary protection would be Article L.712-1 b) Ceseda [which transposes Article 15 (b) of the Qualification Directive]. The applicant has to establish an individual risk of persecution or ill-treatment in case of return to his/her country of origin.

The Administrative Court considered the removal of a Sri Lankan from the UK to Cyprus under the Dublin Regulation. The applicant had been recognised under UNHCR’s mandate as being a refugee in Malaysia but had subsequently travelled via Thailand, Syria and Cyprus to the UK. The Court found that there was no legitimate expectation under the UK’s Mandate Refugee policy to consider his claim in the UK. Further, applying the principles in MSS v Belgium and Greece and KRS v UK, it found that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he faced a risk of onward refoulement from Cyprus to Sri Lanka or that detention conditions or living conditions in Cyprus should prevent his removal. 

A nexus between an act of persecution and the persecution ground is only necessary to meet the definition of a refugee, but not, however, to determine the question of whether persecution (an act of), and therefore a reason against rejecting the application for international protection, was raised during the procedure at the airport.

The Court must inquire into the circumstances which establish a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment fulfilling the requirements of subsidiary protection.