Case summaries
The case concerned a complaint by two Somali nationals that they risked being ill-treated or killed if returned to Mogadishu from the UK.
If an applicant for international protection has citizenship of one country and a place of last permanent residence in another country, the assessment of persecution or serious harm is considered primarily with regard to the country of nationality. The country of last permanent residence is examined in cases of stateless persons.
The case concerned the interested party's obligation to cite specific facts which can provide evidence that the conditions for falling within the scope of the 1951 Convention had been satisfied. There must be a thorough examination of the main claims and a full justification of any negative decision in the case. If the Minister for Public Order adopts the Committee's negative judgment, then the relevant document must cite not only the interested party's claims but also the questions which were put to the foreigner and the responses he gave. The contested order – based on a defective opinion – referred in general terms to the Applicant not having shown a risk of persecution on racial, political or other grounds, and is deficiently reasoned. The application for annulment was granted.
The Tribunal considered an appeal which raised issues relating to when the arbitrary deprivation of nationality, including the circumstances in which the refusal by the State of nationality to provide documents to allow the applicant to be re-admitted constitutes persecution. It held that these were matters within its jurisdiction and the question of whether a national of a State has been lawfully or unlawfully deprived of that nationality was a legitimate issue to be considered in deciding upon a claim for international protection. Whether arbitrary deprivation of nationality amounts to persecution is a question of fact. The same is true of the denial of the right of return as a national; although in practice it is likely that such a denial will be found to be persecutory.
Refugee status was granted on the basis of a well-founded fear of persecution based on the applicant facing a second act of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) on return to Somalia (persecution ground: membership of a particular social group).
The CALL confirmed that the need for protection should be assessed in relation to the country of nationality (or, for stateless persons, vis-à-vis the country of former habitual residence) and that this is not influenced by the fact that the applicant resided in a “safe third country” or in a “first country of asylum,” or has a “real residence alternative,” these concepts having no grounds in Belgian law. The CALL did however add that if the applicant has refugee or subsidiary protection status in another country, he/she has no direct interest in having that status also recognised in Belgium, except if he/she can demonstrate a fear of persecution or a real risk of serious harm in that other country.
For the purposes of Art 1A(2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention a person is “of” or “has” a nationality where it is established that he or she is already of that nationality or he or she is not of that nationality but is entitled to it. The person should not be considered to hold a nationality if he or she only “may” be able to acquire it.
In assessing nationality in claims for refugee status, nationality is a matter for the State in question’s law, constitution and (to a limited extent) practice which should be proved by evidence and decided on, as a matter of fact, by the court deciding the protection claim. In considering whether a person is a national or is entitled to a nationality of a second State, the person must use their “best efforts” to clarify their status. The evidence of the attitude of a State towards a person who is seeking not to be removed to that State may be of very limited relevance.
The CALL ruled that, if the Office of the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (CGRS) rejects an asylum request because “the applicant has a right of residence in a safe third country,” this should not be seen as an application of the concept of “safe third country” as contained in Art 26 and 27 of the Asylum Procedures Directive.
Trafficking in human beings falls under the prohibition of Art. 4 of the Convention. Consequently, state parties have the positive obligation:
- to adopt an adequate and comprehensive legal framework to combat this criminal offence;
- to undertake protective measures whenever the authorities are aware or ought to have been aware of a serious risk of a person being subject to trafficking;
- and to appropriately investigate situations of potential trafficking.