Case summaries

  • My search
  • Keywords
    1
Reset
CJEU - C-720/17 Bilali, 23 May 2019
Country of applicant: Algeria, Morocco

Member States are required to revoke subsidiary protection on the basis of art. 19(1), if they find out that the conditions that led to the granting of status were never met, regardless of whether the incorrect assessment of facts leading to the status is imputable exclusively to the national authority itself

Date of decision: 23-05-2019
WA (Pakistan) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department, 2019
Country of applicant: Pakistan
This case dealt with the issue of the whether the guidance of MN and others Pakistan CG [2012] was still accurate in terms of asylum protection due to failing to ask the question of why an individual would act in a discreet way in their country of origin. This question draws the distinction between concealment of faith due to fear of persecution or simply due to social norms or personal preference.
 
WA sought to challenge the correctness of the guidance in MN and others Pakistan CG [2012] in that it failed to properly reflect the judgement of HJ (Iran) test of asking why an individual would act in a particular way to avoid persecutory harm in their country of origin. The unanimous judgement allowed the appeal and remitted the case back for a hearing. 
 
Date of decision: 06-03-2019
A.N. and Others v. Russia, Application nos. 61689/16 and 3 others
Country of applicant: Tajikistan, Uzbekistan

Russia had failed to substantially and effectively examine the repeated claims of the applicants that their extradition would constitute a violation of Article 3 ECHR. Given the current situation in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan and the individual circumstances of the applicants, a number of violations were found.

Date of decision: 23-10-2018
France – Council of State, 3 October 2018, N° 406222
Country of applicant: Congo (Republic of)

The French National Court on Asylum has made an error of law by refusing to grant at the very least subsidiary protection to the applicant following his new request to re-examine his situation, despite a condemnation from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) for the violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). 

Date of decision: 03-10-2018
ECtHR - X v. The Netherlands, Application no. 14319/17, 10 July 2018
Country of applicant: Morocco

Article 3 has not been violated in a case concerning the deportation of an individual who had been convicted of a terrorism-related charge to Morocco. However the ECtHR acknowledges that ill-treatment and torture by the police and the security forces still occur, particularly in the case of persons suspected of terrorism or of endangering State security.

Date of decision: 10-07-2018
ECtHR – E.S. v. Spain, Application no. 13273/16, 26 September 2017
Country of applicant: Senegal

The ECtHR declared inadmissible the complaints brought by a Senegalese national who had unsuccessfully applied for asylum in Spain due to his fear of being persecuted in his country of origin on the grounds of his sexual orientation. The complaints were considered premature since the Audiencia Nacional had annulled the administrative decision rejecting his asylum application and the asylum procedure had started afresh. 

Date of decision: 26-09-2017
Belgium - Council for Alien Law Litigation, 17 August 2017, n°190 672
Country of applicant: Albania

An asylum applicant who was a victim of previous persecution in their country of origin can be granted refugee status under article 1, C 5) of the Geneva Convention. This is because, due to the severity of the treatment applied, the applicant’s fear is exacerbated to such an extent that, even if the persecution has ceased to exist, a return to the country of origin would be unthinkable. 

Date of decision: 17-08-2017
Germany – Administrative Court Magdeburg, 26 June 2017, 5 A61/17 MD
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

1. Afghans who have worked for international aid organisations are particularly endangered of becoming victims of political persecution by non-state actors (e.g. Taliban) according to § 3 (1) AsylG in case of a return to Afghanistan.

2. There is no internal protection for these people. They cannot escape the clutches of non-state actors as these groups have a wide (information) network at their disposal and an increased interest in persons who have worked for international aid organisations.

Date of decision: 26-06-2017
Denmark - the Refugee Appeals Board’s decision of 20 January 2017
Country of applicant: Somalia

The applicant, an ethnic Somali and a Sunni Muslim belonging to the Darood Clan and Ogaden Sub-Clan, was born and raised in Libya. 

The Board found that the applicant was, as her parents and siblings, a Somali citizen. Further, considering that Somali was not the applicant’s mother tongue, that she only with difficulty was able to speak, read or write in this language, that she in reality had never been to Somalia, that she does not know anyone in this country, and is a single mother with a son of five years old, the Board found that, in accordance with the ECtHR judgement R.H. v. Sweden, she would face a real risk of living in conditions constituting inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 of the ECHR. The Board therefore granted her subsidiary protection under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (2).

Date of decision: 20-01-2017
ECtHR - Paposhvili v. Belgium, Application no. 41738/10,13 December 2016
Country of applicant: Georgia

Article 3 ECHR is triggered in cases involving the removal of a seriously ill individual where the absence of appropriate treatment in the receiving country or the lack of access to such treatment, exposes the individual to a serious, rapid and irreversible decline in his or her state of health resulting in intense suffering or to a significant reduction in life expectancy.

Access to sufficient and appropriate medical care must be available in reality, not merely in theory and the impact of removal on an applicant must be assessed by considering how an applicant’s condition would evolve after transfer to the receiving State.

Date of decision: 13-12-2016