Case summaries

Contrary to the wording of the corresponding Austrian legislation, an entry ban of at least 18 months which must be issued in every case together with a ban on readmission is not compatible with the Returns Directive without a prior examination on a case-by-case basis. 

Exclusion from refugee protection on the grounds of "serious non-political crime" or of "acts against the purposes and principles of the United Nations", cannot solely be based on the fact that an applicant has been a supporter or a member of an organisation which has been classified as terrorist. There must be serious reasons to justify the assumption that the applicant was personally involved in the commission of such crimes.

The standards of proof for the assessment of possible future persecution are identical for both the refugee status determination procedure and for the revocation procedure (change of legal opinion, following Federal Administrative Court, decisions of 1 June 2011,10 B 10.10 and 10 C 25.10). The question of whether a change of circumstances in a country of origin is of such a significant and non-temporary nature that the refugee’s fear of persecution can no longer be regarded as well-founded can only be answered after an individual assessment.

The involuntary return of an applicant, who did not intend to abandon his/her asylum application, to his/her country of origin results in the temporary interruption of the assessment of his/her case by the Court as the remedy does not temporarily have any ground.

This case concerned the revocation of asylum and refugee status in the case of a former official of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) (following the European Court of Justice case of Federal Republic of Germany v B (C-57/09) and D (C-101/09), 09 November 2010).

When presented with a detailed story that is logical, free from internal contradictions and accords with the social and political situation in the country of origin as described in international reports, the statements of the Applicant have to be deemed to be credible and therefore international protection has to be granted.

Greater caution is required when applying an internal protection alternative to families with children than to adults without children. The Kurdish controlled areas of northern Iraq cannot be considered as a relevant and reasonable flight option for a Christian family, as the Migration Board was not able to show that there currently is no requirement for sponsorship, either to enter or to legally establish oneself there.

An internal protection alternative must be relevant and reasonable. Relevant means that the location is accessible to the individual in a practical, safe and legal manner. The individual must also have access to effective protection at the location. That the option should be reasonable means that an individual assessment of the individual's ability to settle in a new location should be made, and of whether he or she has a social network. There ought also to be a realistic possibility for the individual to support himself and be able to live in a way that does not involve unnecessary suffering or hardship.

The applicant, being a young, single man and fit for work, is at no substantial individual risk, neither in his home province Parwan nor in Kabul. Therefore, it can remain undecided if the conflict in Afghanistan constitutes an internal armed conflict. 

A residence permit granted on the grounds of subsidiary protection and an aliens passport granted under the previous Aliens Act (378/1991)31 § to a Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) national and his family members could not be withdrawn when the family moved from Finland without a prior inquiry into whether or not there were existing grounds for withdrawing the need for subsidiary protection in accordance with the Aliens Act (301/2004) 107 § 2nd clause.

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.