Case summaries

  • My search
  • Keywords
    1
Reset
Finland - Helsinki Administrative Court, 30 Nov 2010, 10/1772/3

The Administrative Court returned the case to the Finnish Immigration Service for re-examination as the Immigration Service had not given sufficient reasons for its decision and had used only a limited amount of country of origin information. Additionally new evidence had been presented in the case during the appeal, which had not been taken into account during the decision making process.

Date of decision: 30-11-2010
Finland - Helsinki Administrative Court, 10 Nov 2010, 10/1514/1
Country of applicant: Iraq

The Administrative Court held that the results of language analysis alone, contradicting the applicant’s description of events, cannot be seen as sufficient proof of the applicant’s place of residence if no other facts have been presented to support the result of the language analysis.

Date of decision: 10-11-2010
Hungary – Metropolitan Court, 30 September 2010, S.W.J. v. Office of Immigration and Nationality, 24.K.32 957/2009/23
Country of applicant: Ethiopia

The Ethiopian applicant was a victim of sexual violence and suffered from serious post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Her claim was rejected based on credibility concerns. The court ruled that the asylum authority failed to assess the facts of the case in a proper manner by applying inappropriate interview techniques and wrongly concluded that the applicant did not substantiate her well-founded fear of persecution.

Date of decision: 30-09-2010
Czech Republic – Supreme Administrative Court, 7 September 2012, A.S. v Ministry of Interior, 4 Azs 60/2007-19
Country of applicant: Ukraine

The conditions for applying an exclusion clause can be fulfilled without considering if there are grounds for granting protection. 

Date of decision: 07-09-2010
Italy - Court of Cassation in Rome, 02 July 2010, No. RG 17576/2010
Country of applicant: Turkey

Political persecution can also exist when legally adopted criminal sanctions are imposed following standard legal proceedings against someone who has simply expressed political opinions. On the other hand, repressive measures with criminal sanctions against incitement to violence cannot be considered to be persecution.

Date of decision: 02-07-2010
ECtHR - R.C. v Sweden, Application No. 41827/07
Country of applicant: Iran

This case concerned risk upon return to Iran in a situation where a person has previously been detained and tortured there and had supporting medical evidence. The Court found a violation of Art. 3 ECHR if the Applicant were to be deported to Iran.

Date of decision: 09-06-2010
Belgium - Council for Alien Law Litigation, 31 May 2010, Nr. 44.471
Country of applicant: Russia (Chechnya)
When it comes to establishing the facts of a case, the Office of the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (CGRS) cannot limit itself to finding that the applicant has not provided any documentary evidence and that its own research was unsuccessful. This would give the false impression that in asylum matters documentary evidence is a primary or even a determining factor.
Date of decision: 31-05-2010
Germany - Administrative Court Aachen, 10 May 2010, 2 K 562/07.A
Country of applicant: Nigeria
  1. In principle, a threat of female genital mutilation (FGM) has to be considered as political persecution according to Section 60 (1) Residence Act.
  2. In Nigeria, FGM is still widespread in all known forms. For the Edo ethnic group, it is usually performed between seven and fourteen days after birth.
  3. The number of circumcisions performed (among the Edo ethnic group) during puberty has decreased significantly in recent years and circumcisions in adulthood are no longer performed, or they are only carried out in a small number of cases.

In the present case the court found that it was unlikely that the applicant was at risk of FGM considering her age (five years) and the fact that both her parents opposed the practice. Further, the requirements of ‘Prohibition of deportation’ (Section 60 (2) through (7) of the Residence Act) were not established; it was considered unlikely that the applicant would actually return to Nigeria as her mother had residency in Germany.

Date of decision: 10-05-2010
Hungary - Metropolitan Court, 8 April 2010, K.H. v. Office of Immigration and Nationality, 15.K.31.662/2009/16
Country of applicant: Kosovo

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.

Date of decision: 08-04-2010
Germany - Administratvive Court Münster, 11 K 413/09.A, 15 March 2010
Country of applicant: Nigeria

A single woman from Nigeria (Urhobo) was eligible for protection from deportation under Section 60 (7) sentence (1) of the Residence Act due to a threat of female genital mutilation (FGM) and forced marriage. The economic and social situation in Nigeria is difficult and tense even for the vast majority of the population. The situation is much worse for single women as women in Nigeria are exposed to multiple discrimination. To a large extent they are under legal incapacity, so that in practice they are only in a position to protect their own interests if they are supported by their family.

Date of decision: 15-03-2010