Case summaries

The applicant lodged an appeal before the High National Court against the decision of the Ministry of Interior to refuse granting refugee status. The refusal was based on the application of an exclusion clause due to the applicant’s alleged membership of a terrorist group and for having committed serious crimes.

It was discussed whether this exclusion clause had been applied lawfully and also if, alternatively, the applicant could be authorised to stay in Spain for humanitarian reasons since, if he was expulsed, there was a risk of suffering inhuman or degrading treatment

The House of Lords considered a number of issues arising out of the proposed deportation of three foreign nationals on the basis that each was a danger to the national security of the United Kingdom. The Court made three particularly relevant findings: (1) that Article 1F(c) of the 1951 Refugee Convention could be invoked to exclude an individual from the provisions of the Convention on the basis of acts committed after the applicant was recognised as a refugee; (2) Diplomatic assurances as to the treatment of an individual were relevant to assessing how an applicant would be treated upon return to their home State, though their assessment was a matter of fact, and; (3) relying on evidence obtained by torture in a criminal trial did not, as a matter of law, always amount to a flagrant denial of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 ECHR.

This case concerned the exclusion from refugee status of a Taliban informer. The Supreme Administrative Court did not apply the exclusion clause in Art IF(b) (corresponding to § 87 paragraph 2 of the Finnish Aliens Act).The Court held that exclusion clauses must be interpreted in the narrowest possible manner.

This case examines the differences between the procedure for examining a claim for asylum and the procedure for examining the application of exclusion clauses.

Exclusion from refugee status under Section 60 (8) (2) Residence Act/Art. 12.2 and Art. 12.3 of the Qualification Directive is only justified if the person concerned poses an ongoing threat.

Exclusion from refugee status on the grounds of serious non-political crimes is only permissible if the applicant still poses a threat. The Court found that an applicant from Turkey, who had been subject to past persecution, was not sufficiently safe from renewed persecution if returned.

The applicant was the leader of the PKK and the most wanted person in Turkey. He was arrested and sentenced to the death penalty. Breaches of Articles 3, 5 and 6 were found with regard to his detention, the imposition of the death penalty and his rights as the defence to a fair trial.

One cannot demand recognition of refugee status pursuant to Article 1A(2) of the Geneva Convention where protection can be provided pursuant to Article 1D of the Convention. The phrase used in the first sentence of Article 1D of the Convention – “persons who are at present receiving… protection or assistance” – relates to those Palestinians who could avail themselves of protection on the date of the Convention, i.e., on 28 July 1951., and to their direct descendants born after that date, provided they remain under the mandate of UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency). “Protection or assistance” for Palestinians is provided solely in areas under the UNRWA mandate. Therefore, exclusions from protection under the Geneva Convention relate only to those Palestinians who reside permanently in those areas.