Case summaries

This case considered exclusion from refugee status and found that criminal proceedings are not required for the application of Art 12.2 of the Qualification Directive or Art 1F of the Refugee Convention.

For the exclusion ground of war crimes or crimes against humanity to be applicable it is not necessary to establish to the point of utmost certainty that a refugee has committed such crimes, it is sufficient if serious reasons justify this assumption.  A revocation of refugee status is also possible if war crimes or crimes against humanity have been committed after refugee status was granted.

The case concerned an appeal against a decision of the Ministry of Interior (MOI) to refuse a claim for subsidiary protection status on the grounds that the applicant was excluded as a result of his activities, which were considered ‘contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.’ The appeal was successful, the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) held that exclusion clauses must be interpreted restrictively, that there must be ‘serious grounds to believe’ such acts were carried out and notwithstanding the exclusion clause, non refoulement obligations under Art 3 of the ECHR apply.

The Migration Court of Appeal held that internal armed conflict prevails in all parts of southern and mid Somalia.

It follows from the clear wording of Article 1D of the Refugee Convention that the clause contained therein on exclusion from refugee status applies only to persons who are actually making use of assistance provided by UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees in the Near East), and this must be interpreted strictly, i.e. it cannot also apply to persons who have made use of or might make use of protection or assistance. For the purposes of Article 12(1)(a), sentence one, of the Qualification Directive, according to the Court a person makes use of the protection or assistance of a UN agency other than the UNHCR when such a person is truly makes use of such protection or assistance.

This case concerned exclusion and confirmed that Art 12.2 of the Qualification Directive, should be interpreted so that the determining authority must perform an individual examination of the applicant’s case and assess the individual responsibility according to the objective and subjective criteria, as set out in the judgment of Germany v B and D.  In such cases, the burden of proof does not rest with the applicant but on the determining authority.

Passive complicity in genocide includes a material element and an intentional element, as active complicity does.

When applying the exclusion clause of Article 1F(c) of the 1951 Refugee Convention, the Court has to inquire into the degree of personal involvement of the applicant in acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

The case concerned an appeal lodged before the High National Court against the decision of the Ministry of Interior to refuse to grant refugee status based on the application of two exclusion clauses, Art 1F(a) and 1F(b) of the 1951 Refugee Convention. The applicant challenged the application of the exclusion clauses arguing an individual assessment was required, as well as evidence of participation in the crimes mentioned. The appeal was rejected. 

This Case concluded that membership of a terrorist organisation is not in itself a sufficient ground for exclusion from refugee status.