Case summaries

  • My search
  • Keywords
    1
Reset
Czech Republic - Supreme Administrative Court, 16 September 2008, N.U. v Ministry of Interior, 3 Azs 48/2008-57
Country of applicant: Kyrgyzstan

Non-state actors (private individuals) can be actors of persecution in relation to persons entitled to asylum, as well as actors of serious harm in relation to persons entitled to subsidiary protection.

Date of decision: 16-09-2008
Czech Republic - Supreme Administrative Court, 14 August 2008, C.I. v Ministry of Interior, 2 Azs 45/2008-67
Country of applicant: Angola

The right to obtain information about the whereabouts of a disappeared family member, as well as publicising the information concerning the disappearance, belong, according to the Czech Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedom, to political rights. Therefore, the applicant must be granted asylum if he had been persecuted for exercising this right.

Date of decision: 14-08-2008
Czech Republic - Supreme Administrative Court, 28 February 2007, T.A. v Ministry of Interior, 4 Azs 146/2006-100
Country of applicant: Unknown

Where reports from applicant’s country of origin establish that the minority group to which the applicant belongs is a target of discrimination and persecution from the authorities and police, the applicant’s claim cannot be refused on the grounds that he/she had not asked the authorities for protection and failed to exhaust all legal means available.

Date of decision: 28-02-2007
France - CRR, Plenary session, 29 July 2005, Miss A., n°487336
Country of applicant: Somalia

Refugee Appeals Board/ Commission des recours des réfugiés (CRR) (CRR) held that the Somali government (Federal Transitional Government), was at the time of the decision, unable to effectively exercise organised power within Somali territory and under these circumstances to provide protection to the members of the Reer Hamar clan; no other authority is able to provide protection to the members of this community.

Date of decision: 29-07-2005
UK - Court of Appeal, 11 November 2003, R (Bagdanavicius) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (CA) [2005] EWCA Civ 1605
Country of applicant: Lithuania

The Court of Appeal gave guidance on the relevant factors to consider in assessing claims for protection against persecution from non-state actors under the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the ECHR.

Date of decision: 11-11-2003
UK - Court of Appeal, 3 January 2002, Svazas v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 74
Country of applicant: Lithuania

Where the actors of persecution feared are themselves state agents consideration must still be given to whether the applicant can avail himself of protection, but this assessment must be made in context. There will be a spectrum of cases between, on the one extreme, those where the only ill-treatment is by non-state actors and, on the other extreme, those where the state itself is wholly complicit in the ill-treatment.

Date of decision: 03-01-2002
UK - Immigration Appeal Tribunal, 19 July 2001, Kacaj v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] UKIAT 0018
Country of applicant: Albania
This case confirmed that the UK will apply a single standard of proof for protection claims, whether based on Refugee Convention grounds or Art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Date of decision: 19-07-2001
UK - House of Lords, 6 July 2000, Horvath v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] UKHL 37
Country of applicant: Slovakia

In cases where the applicant fears persecution from non-state actors, the home state can be judged to provide protection if it has in place a system of domestic protection machinery for the detection, prosecution and punishment of such acts, and has an ability and readiness to operate the machinery.  Where the line is drawn will depend on the facts of the case.

Date of decision: 06-07-2000
ECtHR - McCann and others v United Kingdom, Application No. 18984/91, 27 September 1995
Country of applicant: United Kingdom

The killing of 3 IRA terrorist by SAS soldiers in order to prevent a suspected bomb attack is alleged as a deprivation of the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention. The ECtHR rules that the UK authorities were in breach of Article 2 in the control and organisation of the operation against the suspects.

Date of decision: 27-09-1995