Case summaries

  • My search
  • Keywords
    1
Reset
Greece - Thrace Appeal Council, July 2005, Application No. 139/2005
Country of applicant: Azerbaijan

Rejection of an extradition request by Azerbaijan in a case where the wanted person had been recognised as a refugee by Germany. Azerbaijan's request for extradition because of acts contrary to common criminal law was a premise aimed at stifling the wanted person's political opposition to the extraditing country's government. Azerbaijan was requesting extradition for political reasons.

Date of decision: 07-07-2005
Czech Republic - Supreme Administrative Court, 14 January 2004, A.C. v. Ministry of Interior, 2 Azs 69/2003-49
Country of applicant: Moldova

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. 

Date of decision: 14-01-2004
UK - Court of Appeal, 11 November 2003, R (Bagdanavicius) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (CA) [2005] EWCA Civ 1605
Country of applicant: Lithuania

The Court of Appeal gave guidance on the relevant factors to consider in assessing claims for protection against persecution from non-state actors under the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the ECHR.

Date of decision: 11-11-2003
UK - House of Lords, 23 March 2003, Sepet & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] UKHL 15
Country of applicant: Turkey

The 1951 Refugee Convention does not provide protection in respect of claims of conscientious objectors who feared imprisonment for their refusal to undertake military service where there is no alternative service offered in national law. This was the position even if that objection is to all forms of military service and is absolute. The right to conscientious objection was not yet protected in international human rights law and was yet to emerge as a principle of customary international law. A claim may succeed if the applicant would be required, in the course of military service, to conduct military action that breached the basic rules of human conduct or if the punishment they would receive for refusal to serve was discriminatory or disproportionate. Secondly, when assessing whether persecution was “for” a Convention reason the decision-maker should ask the question of “what was the real reason for the persecution?”. The decision-maker should not limit the enquiry to the persecutor’s motivation but should look for the effective reason or reasons.

Date of decision: 23-03-2003
Poland - Supreme Administrative Court in Warsaw, 4 June 2002, V SA 2817/01
Country of applicant: Russia

When assessing an application for refugee status, what is important is whether the acts of persecution were carried out for the reasons identified in the Geneva Convention, and not whether or to what extent the victim of persecution can be identified with those reasons.

Fear of persecution within the meaning of Article 1A(2) of the Geneva Convention need not mean that persecution is certain or even probable. Recognition of refugee status is already justified where there are reasonable grounds for asserting the possibility of persecution. “Possibility” means that persecution may take place although it is neither certain nor probable, and the “reasonable grounds” requirement indicates the need to establish real and objective evidence of the risk of persecution. The plausibility of the threat is shown by the situation in the country of origin of the person applying for refugee status as well as that person’s experience to date.

Date of decision: 04-06-2002
UK - Court of Appeal, 3 January 2002, Svazas v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 74
Country of applicant: Lithuania

Where the actors of persecution feared are themselves state agents consideration must still be given to whether the applicant can avail himself of protection, but this assessment must be made in context. There will be a spectrum of cases between, on the one extreme, those where the only ill-treatment is by non-state actors and, on the other extreme, those where the state itself is wholly complicit in the ill-treatment.

Date of decision: 03-01-2002
ECtHR - Velikova v. Bulgaria , Application no.41488/98, 18 May 2000
Country of applicant: Bulgaria

Applicant complained under Articles 2, 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention in relation to the death of her partner while in police custody.

Date of decision: 18-05-2000
UK - House of Lords, 2 April 1998, Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Adan, [1998] UKHL 15
Country of applicant: Somalia
A person who leaves his own country because of a well-founded fear of being persecuted for a Convention reason and later is unable, or, owing to that fear is unwilling, to avail himself of that country's protection even when the grounds for his fear have gone, does not have the status of a refugee.
 
In addition, in a State where there is a civil war when law and order has broken down and every group is fighting one another for political power then, to be entitled to refugee status, a group or individual the individual or group has to show a well-founded fear of persecution over and above the risk to life and liberty inherent in the civil war.
Date of decision: 02-04-1998
UK - Court of Appeal, 13 February 1998, Lazarevic v Secretary of State For Home Department [1997] EWCA Civ 1007; [1997] Imm AR 251
Country of applicant: Somalia

The Court of Appeal held that an asylum-seeker unable to return to his country of origin may indeed be entitled to recognition as a refugee provided only that the fear or actuality of past persecution still plays a causative part in his or her presence here. Further, the refusal of the State of nationality to permit return can constitute persecution.

Date of decision: 13-02-1998
ECtHR - Ahmed v. Austria, Application No. 25964/94, 17 December 1996
Country of applicant: Somalia

This case involved a Somali refugee in Austria whose refugee status was ordered as forfeited after a criminal conviction. Because of the absolute nature of Art. 3, the Court found his criminal conviction immaterial and that he still faced a serious risk of persecution in Somalia, therefore Austria would breach its obligations under Art. 3 if his deportation was executed. 

Date of decision: 17-12-1996