Case summaries
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Court examined the issue of when the refusal of the applicant’s State of nationality to provide documents to allow her to be readmitted to that State represents a denial of the applicant’s nationality and, consequently, provides a basis for a claim for asylum. The Court held that the deprivation of nationality can constitute persecution. It further held that concepts of de jure and de facto nationality, applied by the Tribunal in the appeal, were likely to obscure the question of whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution. It held that the correct standard of proof in respect of the issue of re-documentation will usually be the balance of probabilities rather than a reasonable degree of likelihood. It further held that, to prove her case, the applicant was under a duty to take all reasonable steps in good faith to obtain documents from the authorities of her State of nationality.
The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 5 para 1 (f), 4 and 5 with regards to some of the eleven applicants in this case, who were detained as suspected terrorists by UK authorities.
The judgment specifies standards for country of origin information to be used as proof in administrative and judicial proceedings. The evaluation report of the European Commission on the progress made by candidate countries is not intended for international protection proceedings, as these may only be used as supporting material together with other reports about the country of origin.