Case summaries

The Ministry of Interior is obliged to consider whether the conditions for granting subsidiary protection are fulfilled even when the application for international protection is dismissed as manifestly unfounded when it is clear that the applicant is making an application merely in order to delay or frustrate the enforcement of an earlier or imminent decision which would result in his or her removal, and if the applicant has failed without reasonable cause to make his or her application earlier, having had opportunity to do so.

The case concerned an accelerated procedure decision. The applicant, an Uzbek national, claimed asylum only after he feared removal from the Czech Republic, his application was therefore rejected as unfounded by the Ministry of the Interior. However, the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) disagreed and set a three condition test to be applied in order to determine when an application is unfounded. The SAC also pointed out that the grounds for applying for international protection can be based on events which had taken place since the applicant left the country of origin.

Examining the application as manifestly unfounded requires a three-stage test: (1) whether there is a risk of expulsion  abroad or extradition of the person, (2) whether the Applicant could have filed the application sooner, (3) whether it is obvious from the steps taken by the Applicant that they had filed the application with the sole intention of avoiding imminent expulsion or extradition.

Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights does not have, for instance, extraterritorial effect in comparison with Articles 3 and 8 of the same Convention. The return of an individual to a country where he is threatened with constraints on his religious freedom, which do not reach the level of interference with his rights pursuant to Article 3 of the Convention, is not in contradiction with the Convention. Such a return cannot even represent prima facie serious harm for the purpose of examining subsidiary protection.

This case was an appeal against the decision of the Polish Refugee Board on refusal to accord refugee status on the grounds that the application was manifestly unfounded application, and on granting a permit for tolerated stay. The lack of grounds for an application does not mean that the case should not be examined on its merits.

When assessing a subsequent application, the authority may find that, in the framework of the new assertions of the interested party, the application is manifestly unfounded. The authority has the right to reach such a conclusion provided that the application is first examined in the context of its contents and in the context of the evidence cited by the Applicant.

The authority is also obliged to examine the case initiated by the subsequent application in light of the progress made, if any, in the case concerning the previously submitted (first) application for refugee status.

Belonging to a group of people without power or influence does not constitute a particular social group and therefore cannot be deemed a convention ground for persecution under the Refugee Convention. 

The case involved a Sri Lankan asylum seeker whose application was rejected in Germany, and upon seeking asylum in the UK, was rejected on the basis of the Dublin Convention and that his application corresponded to Germany. The Court found no breach of a Convention obligation from the UK by its decision to remove him to Germany.