Case summaries

This case concerned an appeal against a decision of the Ministry of Interior (MOI) to refuse a grant of asylum. Having regard to a report from the country of origin, the MOI classified the applicant´s account as not credible. In his appeal, the applicant challenged this decision on the grounds that the MOI did not ascertain the real state of affairs, using only one source of information. The appeal was successful. The Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) held that the country of origin information must be verified from various sources and laid down other conditions for using the country of origin information.

This case concerned the test to be applied by the Minister as the decision-maker in applications for subsidiary protection. The Court held that it was permissible for the Minister to have regard to the reports and findings of other decision-makers in the asylum process (specifically the Refugee Appeals Tribunal). However, a particularly careful and thorough analysis will be required if the case for subsidiary protection is put on an entirely new basis which has never been considered at any stage of the process. In relation to state protection, the Court reiterated that the onus lies on an applicant to provide clear and convincing proof of a state’s inability to protect its citizens.

New assessments and guidance from UNHCR regarding protection grounds and the possibility of internal protection are such "new circumstance" as referred to in Chapter 12  § 19 of the Aliens Act.

A recent UNHCR's report showing that the situation in Sri Lanka had significantly deteriorated for the group to which the applicant belonged was such a new factor and was likely to constitute a permanent obstacle to enforcement under Chapter 12. 1, 2 or 3 § and therefore a new assessment was granted.

The Secretary of State for Justice does not have to give an applicant who submitted copies of documents of which he had the possibility of acquiring the originals before he left his country, an opportunity to submit these originals during the asylum process, regardless of the State’s duty to conduct research and cooperate with the applicant as determined in Art 8 of the Procedures Directive and Art 4 of the Qualification Directive.

The asylum procedure is a specific procedure as the applicants do not have knowledge of the Czech language. If an applicant submits documents in a language other than Czech it must be considered if it is the applicant or the Ministry of Interior who is responsible for providing a translation.

If any fact emerges during the interview, which indicates that the applicant could be persecuted for exercising his political rights and freedoms, or has a well-founded fear of being persecuted on the grounds upon which asylum can be granted, the Ministry of Interior obliged to conduct the interview in a way that would achieve an outcome which is sufficiently clear for the needs of considering the asylum claim. It is also necessary to evaluate the way in which state power is exercised in the country of origin, and the real possibility of exercising one’s political rights and other circumstances that could establish grounds for international protection.

The present case, which ended in a friendly settlement between the parties, concerned the allegations of a Russian national that he would be exposed to ill-treatment if expelled to Russia.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the proposed expulsion of a Tanzanian national from the United Kingdom to Tanzania will expose him to inhuman and degrading treatment, in violation of Article 3 of the Convention.