Case summaries

The applicant lodged an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the High National Court to refuse granting refugee status. The refusal was founded on the application of an exclusion clause. It was held that the applicant constituted a danger to Spanish security. This decision examined the conditions required to apply this exclusion clause, namely that it has to be determined that there are “reasonable grounds” to believe that such danger exists.

A potential violation of Art. 3 of the Convention can be found when a person risks to be extradited to a country where practice of ill-treatment of detainees are reported by reliable sources, notwithstanding possible assurances by the involved public prosecutors of that country.

Given the irreversible and particular serious nature of the harm which might occur if risks relevant under art. 3 of the Convention materialise, an effective remedy to avoid such a harm within the meaning of art. 13 of the Convention requires both an independent and rigorous scrutiny of a claim, and a remedy with automatic suspensive effect. 

The case concerned an appeal before the Supreme Court lodged by the Attorney General against the decision of the High National Court to grant refugee status. Status was granted to a Moroccan army deserter on the basis of a well founded fear of persecution on the grounds of political opinion. At issue on appeal was whether refugee status was granted based upon a fear of persecution resulting from the army desertion (which took place in Morocco), or due to the imputed political opinions that had arisen since his desertion (which arose in Spain): i.e. whether the applicant was a refugee sur place.

Subsidiary protection can be granted if on return to their country of origin an applicant would face a real risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The question at issue was whether the reasons for such ill-treatment related to Refugee Convention persecution grounds or not. All international protection statuses require an individual threat, which cannot be indirect as the risk assessment is a future oriented examination of the possibility of a threat, along with the applicant’s individual circumstances and the probabilities of risk.

The applicants, who had been recognised as refugees by UNHCR, faced risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 upon Turkey’s proposed  deportation of them to either Iran or Iraq. They had no effective opportunity to make an asylum claim or challenge their deportation. Further their detention had no legal justification and they had been unable to challenge its lawfulness. The Court found violations of Article 3, 13, 5(1), 5(2) and 5(4). 

The case concerned an appeal against a refusal to grant refugee status on the grounds that the applicant lacked credibility as the country of origin information (COI) submitted by the applicant was not verified by the national documentation service providing COI. 

UK domestic legislation that deemed that EU member states were safe third countries for the purposes of removal under the Dublin Regulation was not, as a matter of course, incompatible with Article 3 ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998. However, if the applicant could show that his or her rights under Article 3 ECHR would be breached by his or her removal to Greece, a declaration of incompatibility between the legislation and the Human Rights Act would be made, although the Court would be prevented from finding that the removal would breach the applicant’s rights.  However, the evidence combined with the ECtHR’s ruling in KRS v. UK was not sufficient to indicate that there was such a risk and, in any event, the applicant could seek the protection of the ECtHR in Greece.

The applicant lodged an appeal before the High National Court against the decision of the Ministry of Interior to refuse granting refugee status. The refusal was based on the application of an exclusion clause due to the applicant’s alleged membership of a terrorist group and for having committed serious crimes.

It was discussed whether this exclusion clause had been applied lawfully and also if, alternatively, the applicant could be authorised to stay in Spain for humanitarian reasons since, if he was expulsed, there was a risk of suffering inhuman or degrading treatment

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.