Case summaries

The CGRS (Office of the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons) may not dispute the nationality of an asylum seeker without taking into account the official documents that he has filed.

1. The issue as to whether an asylum-seeker was already protected against political persecution in a third country is only relevant in terms of  the asylum application for recognition of refugee status in the context of the concept of the first country of asylum as defined in EU law in Article 29 of the Asylum Procedures Act (Articles 25 and 26 of the Asylum Procedures Directive).  

2. If the Federal Office has reached a decision on the asylum application in this case, the substantive question of the subsidiarity of refugee protection in the assessment of refugee status is no longer applicable.

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. 

This case concerned a decision of the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner to refuse to process the asylum applications of two nationals of Azerbaijan, with refugee status in Poland. The applicants claimed they were being watched by Azeri agents in Poland and felt unsafe there. The Court held that the applicants would have had to show that the Polish authorities were unwilling or unable to provide protection. In circumstances where they had not even reported their fears to the Polish authorities, the applications were bound to fail. The Minister had no jurisdiction to grant them refugee status pursuant to the provisions of section 17 (4) of the Refugee Act, 1996.

The applicant lodged an appeal before the High National Court against the decision issued by the Ministry of Interior to refuse granting stateless status. At issue in the case was whether the reasons given by the Ministry were lawful: if the applicant had already received protection from Algeria and if he fell within the scope of the exclusion clause because of the protection already granted by organs of the UN other than UNHCR.

In a decision on whether the return of an unaccompanied minor to Hungary under the Dublin Regulation is unlawful in light of Art. 3 ECHR and therefore the sovereignty clause should be used, Art. 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union(CFRU – best interest of the child as a primary consideration for authorities) is significant.

The Court considered whether an application for international protection by an applicant of Russian nationality based on experiences of persecution in Lithuania (country of asylum) could be dismissed based on the reasoning that Lithuania is deemed to be a safe country of asylum. The Administrative Court held that the question of whether the applicants are in need of international protection based on the treatment they have received in their country of asylum, Lithuania, could not be examined in an asylum procedure in Lithuania.

The case concerned an appeal before the High National Court against the decision of the Spanish Asylum and Refugee Office (Ministry of Interior) rejecting an application for refugee status based on the fact that the applicant entered the EU through Greece. Therefore, following the Dublin II Regulation, Greece would be the responsible country for examining the application for asylum. The High National Court stated that after passing the six month period established by Art 19.3 of the Regulation CE/343/2003 without executing the transfer of the applicant to a Member State considered responsible for the examination, Spain was the responsible country for the case.