Case summaries

The case concerned a woman who feared return to Sierra Leone because she would face gender specific persecution in the form of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM).  The issue was whether she was entitled to recognition as a refugee because she feared persecution on account of her membership of a particular social group.  Her appeal was allowed on the basis that women in Sierra Leone and, alternatively, uninitiated women who had not been subjected to FGM in Sierra Leone, were particular social groups.

Multiple violations of the Convention by the Belgian Government by detaining an unaccompanied five-year-old child at a transit centre for adult foreigners, removing her and conditions in which she was removed to her home country. Distress and anxiety of the mother as a result of her daughter’s detention and deportation resulted in a number of violations of the Convention. 

The House of Lords considered whether refusal or deprivation of state support to destitute asylum applicants, who were by law prohibited from working, was sufficiently severe as to engage Art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Women who want to escape from a forced marriage, whose attitude is perceived by whole or part of the society of their country of origin as an infringement of the applicable customs and laws, and who therefore face a risk of persecution against which the authorities are unable or unwilling to provide protection, must be considered as members of a social group in the meaning of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention; when these conditions are not fulfilled, in particular when their behavior is not perceived as an infringement of the social order, these women nevertheless face the risk of suffering inhuman or degrading treatment and should therefore be granted subsidiary protection.

The European Court of Human Rights held that the expulsion of an Eritrean deserter to Eritrea would give rise to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

The Austrian authorities must, in each case, examine whether there exists a real risk of a violation of Art 3 ECHR through indirect refoulement when expelling an asylum applicant and, if such a risk exists, the authorities should exercise the sovereignty clause in the Dublin Regulation. This applies even where a request to take back is made to another Member State of the Dublin Regulation. Although the Asylum Board's reasoning for refusing the applicant's appeal against a transfer to Slovakia was not very detailed, it was not arbitrary and therefore there was no violation of the applicant's Constitutional rights.

The court gave guidance for assessing whether the risk of suicide on removal would engage Art 3 of the European Convention on Human rights.

Thirteen applicants from Georgia and Russia (of Chechen origin) alleged that their extradition to Russia, where capital punishment was not abolished, exposed them to the risk of death, torture or ill-treatment contrary to Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. The applicants also alleged that they had been subject to violence and ill-treatment by fifteen members of the Georgian Ministry of Justice’s special forces in Tbilisi Prison no.5., on the night of 3 and 4 October 2002. Their legal representatives asserted that Mr Aziev, one of the extradited applicants, had died as a result of ill-treatment inflicted on him. The applicants also complained of violations of Article 2 and 3, Article 5 §§ 1, 2 and 4, Article 13 in conjunction with articles 2 and 3, Article 34, Articles 2, 3 and 6 §§ 1,2 and 3 and Article 38 § 1 of the Convention. 

The case involved two Uzbek nationals who were extradited to Uzbekistan by Turkey after Uzbekistan claimed they had committed terror-related crimes, while the applicants countered that they were political dissidents and would face ill-treatment and torture if returned. Despite the Court ordering interim measures to defer, Turkey extradited both and they were sentenced to terms of imprisonment. The Court found no violations of Art. 2, 3, or 6, but did find a violation of Art. 34 for Turkey’s non-compliance with the interim measures. 

When a transfer under the Dublin Regulation would result in a violation of fundamental rights, the Member State in which the applicant is present can examine the asylum application even though another State should have been responsible under the Dublin Regulation. In this case, the applicant’s wife was allowed to remain in France as she was in the advanced stage of pregnancy and, therefore, transferring the applicant would violate Art 8 ECHR.