Case summaries

  • My search
  • Keywords
    1
Reset
Belgium – Council for Alien Law Litigation, 19 May 2011, Nr. 61.832
Country of applicant: Somalia

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). 

Date of decision: 19-05-2011
Belgium – Council for Alien Law Litigation, 12 May 2011, Nr. 61.630
Country of applicant: Russia

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. 

Date of decision: 12-05-2011
Belgium – Council for Alien Law Litigation, 18 March 2011, Nr. 58.073
Country of applicant: Russia
The CALL elaborated on the applicable principles in cases where the applicant for asylum already holds refugee status in another country.
Date of decision: 18-03-2011
UK - Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), 7 March 2011, KK and others (Nationality; North Korea) Korea CG [2011] UKUT 92
Country of applicant: North Korea, South Korea

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.

Date of decision: 07-03-2011
Belgium – Council for Alien Law Litigation, 24 November 2010, Nr. 51.569
Country of applicant: Somalia

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.

Date of decision: 24-11-2010
ECtHR - Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, Application no. 25965/04, 10 October 2010
Country of applicant: Russia

Trafficking in human beings falls under the prohibition of Art. 4 of the Convention.  Consequently, state parties have the positive obligation:

  1. to adopt an adequate and comprehensive legal framework to combat this criminal offence;  
  2. 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;
  3. and to appropriately  investigate situations of potential trafficking. 
Date of decision: 10-10-2010
Belgium – Council for Alien Law Litigation, 11 August 2010, Nr. 47.186
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

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.

Date of decision: 11-08-2010
Belgium – Council for Alien Law Litigation, 18 June 2010, Nr. 45.095, 45.096, 45.098
Country of applicant: Bosnia and Herzegovina
This case concerned the status of family members. The CALL held that Art 23 of the Qualification Directive, which has no direct effect, does not create a right for the family member of a beneficiary of refugee or subsidiary protection status to benefit from the same status, and reminds Member States of the necessity to take into account the personal legal status of the family member (e.g. different nationality). Where a child has parents with two different types of status and the nationality of the child cannot be established, then the child should be given the status that is most beneficial to him/her.
Date of decision: 18-06-2010
ECtHR - Baysakov and others v. Ukraine, Application no. 54131/08, 18 may 2010
Country of applicant: Kazakhstan

A potential violation of Art. 3 of the Convention can be found when a person risks to be extradited to a country where practice of ill-treatment of detainees are reported by reliable sources, notwithstanding possible assurances by the involved public prosecutors of that country.

Given the irreversible and particular serious nature of the harm which might occur if risks relevant under art. 3 of the Convention materialise, an effective remedy to avoid such a harm within the meaning of art. 13 of the Convention requires both an independent and rigorous scrutiny of a claim, and a remedy with automatic suspensive effect. 

Date of decision: 18-05-2010
France - CNDA, 23 December 2009, Ms. K., n° 636547/08017005
Country of applicant: North Korea, South Korea
Keywords: Country of origin

The protection provided by the 1951 Refugee Convention can only be afforded if it is established that the asylum applicant, for a valid reason linked to one of the grounds listed in Art 1A(2) of this Convention, is unable or unwilling to avail him/herself of the protection of the country(ies) of nationality or, for a stateless person, of the country of habitual residence. 

Date of decision: 23-12-2009