Case summaries

The CALL considered that the internal protection alternative rule limits access to international protection and found that, in order for the rule to be applied, it is up to the asylum authority to demonstrate (1) that there is a part of the country of origin where the applicant has no reason to fear persecution and runs no real risk of serious harm, and (2) that it could be reasonably expected of the applicant to stay in that part of the country (taking into account the general circumstances in the country and the personal circumstances of the applicant).

This case examined the compatibility of the Dublin II Regulation with the European Convention on Human Rights regarding transfers to Greece under the Dublin II Regulation. The Court found that there was a violation of Article 3 ECHR by the Greece Government because of the applicant’s conditions of detention, violation of Article 3 ECHR by Greece concerning the applicant’s living conditions in Greece, violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3 ECHR against Greece because of the deficiencies in the asylum procedure followed in the applicant’s case and the risk of his expulsion to Afghanistan without any serious examination of the merits of his asylum application and without any access to an effective remedy. The Court also found in relation to Belgium that there was a violation of Article 3 by sending the applicant back to Greece and exposing him to risks linked to the deficiencies in the asylum procedure in that State, also held against Belgium a violation of Article 3 for sending him to Greece and exposing him to detention and living conditions there that were in breach of that ECHR article. The Court also found a violation of Article 13 ECHR taking in conjunction with Article 3 ECHR against Belgium.

When medico-legal evidence of torture is provided by specialists and found credible it is incumbent on the Migration Board to put forward evidence that there is no further risk of torture in the relevant country. 

The existence of a risk of persecution in the country of origin should be assessed on the basis of information concerning the country of origin rather than on the basis of the credibility of the asylum seeker.

Where an applicant's account is rejected as incredible, his or her claim will only succeed where there is undisputed objective evidence which goes a long way towards showing that the applicant is nonetheless a member of a group that is at risk. The weight to be given to lies is fact sensitive and dependent on the relevance of the lie to the central issue in the appeal.

In this case the court considered the risk to a refugee of indirect refoulement from a third country. 

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.

The CALL ruled that it is an applicant’s obligation to give as complete a picture as possible of their profile and past, including the countries and places of previous residence, in order to allow an assessment of the need for subsidiary protection. In the case of a stay/residence of many years outside his/her country of origin, it cannot be ruled out that the applicant has citizenship in a third country and that protection in Belgium is not needed.

In a decision on whether the return of an unaccompanied minor to Hungary under the Dublin Regulation is unlawful in light of Art. 3 ECHR and therefore the sovereignty clause should be used, Art. 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union(CFRU – best interest of the child as a primary consideration for authorities) is significant.

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.