Case summaries

  • My search
  • Keywords
    1
Reset
Hungary - Budapest Administrative and Labour Court, KKF v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal (Office of Immigration and Nationality, OIN) 15.K30.590/2013/5
Country of applicant: Lebanon, Palestinian Territory

An applicant of Palestinian origin was granted refugee status.  UNWRA assistance ceased for reasons beyond the applicant’s control, and therefore the applicant is entitled ipso facto to the benefits provided by the Convention. Consequently, refugee status must be granted automatically. 

Date of decision: 21-03-2013
Hungary - Budapest Administrative and Labour Court, 7 March 2013, A.A.A. v. Office of Immigration and Nationality, 6.K.30.092/2013/12
Country of applicant: Lebanon

Applicant of Palestinian origin received refugee status. Assistance from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) ceased for reasons beyond the applicant’s control, and therefore the applicant is entitled ipso facto to the benefits provided by the Convention.

Date of decision: 07-03-2013
France - National Asylum Court, 13 February 2012, M.D., No. 11026661
Country of applicant: Saudi Arabia

The fears of an Applicant originating from a refugee camp near Tindouf were considered with regard to the Self-Proclaimed Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR), taken as a de facto authority. 

Date of decision: 13-02-2012
Czech Republic - Supreme Administrative Court, 25 November 2011, V.S. v Ministry of Interior, 6 Azs 29/2010-85
Country of applicant: Israel

If an applicant for international protection has citizenship of one country and a place of last permanent residence in another country, the assessment of persecution or serious harm is considered primarily with regard to the country of nationality. The country of last permanent residence is examined in cases of stateless persons.

Date of decision: 25-11-2011
Greece - Council of State, 25 October 2011, Application No. 3328/2011
Country of applicant: Turkey

The General Secretary of the Ministry of Public Order, having had an application for asylum referred back to it, considered whether the submitted evidence was “new and crucial”. If so, an ab initio examination of the application would be ordered. Failure to give notification of an act does not affect its validity, but only the start of the deadline for submitting an application for its annulment. The copy of the Turkish Government Gazette which promulgated the decision regarding withdrawal of the Applicant's nationality, was new and crucial evidence. There was no justification for refusing the request for an ab initio examination of the Applicant's circumstances, nor for rejecting his application to remain in the country on humanitarian grounds.

Date of decision: 25-10-2011
Germany - High Administrative Court Sachsen-Anhalt, 25 May 2011, 3 L 374/09
Country of applicant: Syria

A stateless Kurd from Syria was not recognised as a refugee. The court held:

  1. The denial of re-entry of stateless Kurds is not to be considered political persecution because a general institutional practice cannot be detected which is aimed against ethnic Kurds in a manner that is relevant to asylum grounds (Art 10 of the Qualification Directive).
  2. Whether the legal practice of Syrian legislation on citizenship and the denial of re-entry are part of a restrictive policy towards Kurds, and support the aims of the State of Syria in respect of its settlement policy, is not important when determining political persecution under Section 60 (1) sentence (5) of the Residence Act in connection with Art. 9 and 10 Qualification Directive.
Date of decision: 25-05-2011
Spain - High National Court, 3 November 2010, 555/2009
Country of applicant: Bangladesh

The applicant sought asylum in Spain claiming to have suffered persecution in Bangladesh on the grounds of membership of a group (the Beharies) determined by its ethnic identity. This persecution intensified when the war with Pakistan broke out. The Ministry of Interior refused the application which was appealed by the applicant to the High National Court. This court examined if persecution under the 1951 Refugee Convention could be established, beyond a case of discrimination.

Date of decision: 03-11-2010
Spain - High National Court, 5 September 2010, 42/2009
Country of applicant: Algeria, Western Sahara

The applicant lodged an appeal before the High National Court against the decision issued by the Ministry of Interior to refuse granting stateless status. At issue in the case was whether the reasons given by the Ministry were lawful: if the applicant had already received protection from Algeria and if he fell within the scope of the exclusion clause because of the protection already granted by organs of the UN other than UNHCR.

Date of decision: 05-09-2010
Belgium - Council for Alien Law Litigation, 24 June 2010, Nr. 45.396
Country of applicant: Kosovo
Referring to Belgian law and the provisions of the Qualification Directive, the Council for Alien Law Litigation (CALL) held in a General Assembly decision that the need for protection should be assessed against the country of nationality or against the country of former habitual residence (where the applicant is a stateless person or their nationality is unclear).
Date of decision: 24-06-2010
CJEU - C-31/09 Nawras Bolbol v Hungary
Country of applicant: Palestinian Territory

For the purposes of the first sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2004/83, a person receives protection or assistance from an agency of the United Nations other than UNHCR when that person has actually availed himself of that protection or assistance.

Article 1D of the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, to which Article 12(1)(a) of the Directive refers, merely excludes from the scope of that Convention those persons who are at present receiving protection or assistance from an organ or agency of the United Nations other than UNHCR. It follows from the clear wording of Article 1D of the Geneva Convention that only those persons who have actually availed themselves of the assistance provided by UNRWA come within the clause excluding refugee status set out therein, which must, as such, be construed narrowly and cannot therefore also cover persons who are or have been eligible to receive protection or assistance from that agency.

Date of decision: 17-06-2010