Case summaries

A Russian Federation citizen, originally from Chechnya, had applied for international protection in Finland due to threat of persecution based on his/her family’s political activities. The Applicant had been diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder because of torture. According to the Immigration Service, he/she could resort to internal relocation as specified in Section 88e of the Aliens Act and there were no grounds for granting international protection. The Administrative Court rejected the appeal. The Supreme Administrative Court took the view that the Applicant has had close ties to the Komi Republic and had no problems with the authorities while living there. Therefore he/she can be expected to rely on internal relocation to another part of the country, as specified in Article 88e of the Aliens Act and he/she was not in need of international protection.

Instead of non-refoulement, the Court granted the Applicant subsidiary protection status because he would be at risk of serious harm upon returning to his home country (torture, cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment).

The Respondent's evidence on the safety situation in Kabul and the possibilities for seeking employment, finding somewhere to live and establishing social networks provided the grounds for the Respondent's decision as well as for the judgment by the court of first enstance, both of which stated that the Applicant, in the event that he returned to Kabul, in his country of origin, would be provided with internal protection from serious harm, and that he is thus not entitled to subsidiary protection in the Republic of Slovenia.

This case concerned forced child labour in ther country of origin and sexual exploitation of the daughter of an Ethiopian father and an Eritrean mother, strained relations between the two countries, mass expulsions on the basis of ethnic origin, absence of a family network in the country of origin, total illiteracy, unequal treatment of single women, and an inability to integrate into society.

In relation to the absence of a family network, the case considered the stigma which may be suffered as a member of the particular social group of “single women in Ethiopia”.

Should she return to Ethiopia, it was considered likely that the Applicant would be totally ostracised to such an extent that she would be unable to integrate into society and enjoy her legal rights.

The ruling administrative body is obliged to try to make a decision within the time limit in international protection proceedings; an extension of the time limit must be duly justified and supported by the facts of the case. Absolute inactivity on the part of the ruling body cannot be justified by the instability of the situation in the country of origin or the complexity of the case.

In the present case certain formal conditions for dismissing the application through an accelerated procedure as defined in Article 54 of International Protection Act (ZMZ) were not taken into account. The Ministry of the Internal (MI) did not take a stance as regards the circumstances that the Applicant claimed as the grounds for leaving his country of origin and applying for international protection.

The case concerns the examination of an asylum claim by the Austrian authorities and assessment of a real risk that the applicant would be subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR if expelled to Russia. 

The legal proceedings relating to an appeal regarding the granting of international protection are a summary process that give the judge certain official powers. As a consequence, the judge should decide on the merits of an appeal even if the Applicant fails to attend the hearing.

Regardless of the parallel extradition proceedings, the Ministry of the Interior is obliged within the proceedings to assess the consequences of prosecution of the Applicant for a criminal offence in the country of origin in the context of fulfilling the conditions for international protection. In case of fear of action by private persons, the possibility and effectiveness of protection provided by the state against such actions is to be assessed.

There has been a violation of Article 47 (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union if there is a failure to hold a hearing at the Asylum Court, notwithstanding that the facts of the case are not sufficiently clear. Merely general statements without reference to the case in point do not represent sufficient grounds for the lack of credibility of the submission.