Case summaries

Extradition to Iran of an Iranian citizen. The wanted person was a political refugee who had been recognised by the UN High Commission for Refugees. The Supreme Court (Areios Pagos) rejected the extradition request because of his status and because of the appeal he lodged under the provisions of Article 5 (2) of Presidential Decree 8/2008.

There are "good reasons" within the meaning of Art 4.4 of the Qualification Directive to consider that the persecution of ethnic Chechens from Chechnya which was solely based on membership of the group will not be repeated. The standard of Art 4.4 of the Qualification Directive has now replaced the concept of "sufficient safety from persecution" as developed in German case law for refugees who had been subject to persecution before they left their country of origin. 

Application for annulment of a decision by the Minister of Public Order 

The case concerned deportation of a recognized refugee (Articles 32 and 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees) after a conviction for a criminal offence under common law. Final conviction for a particularly serious crime is not sufficient legitimate justification for an act of deportation.; instead, the Administration is required to issue a specific ruling that the convicted refugee, given the circumstances under which he committed the offence and his personality, is thereafter a risk to the community as a whole to such an extent that his stay in Greece is no longer tolerable and that his immediate removal from the country is required.

A threat to the legal interests of public order does not constitute a reason to revoke refugee status as this is not explicitly referred to in the reasons for terminating refugee status in accordance with Article 1C of the 1951 Convention. Furthermore, it falls within the competence of the Council of State to annul a ruling, issued by relying on Articles 32 and 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, which involves the deportation of an alien who has been recognized as having refugee status under the said international Convention and who continues to have refugee status.

The case also considered the lack of competence of the body which issued the contested decision (General Secretary of the Ministry of Public Order instead of the competent Minister for Public Order). 

Application for annulment of a decision by the Minister of Public Order

This case concerned the interpretation of Presidential Decree 61/1999 in light of Directive 2004/83/EC andexamined the reasoning of the Administration's decision in an application for recognition as a refugee, in an appeal for annulment. The minutes of the Advisory Committee should cite not only the interested party's claims but also the content of the questions put by members of the Committee and the alien's responses, as well as a detailed assessment of the claims and of any documentation or other evidence which may have been submitted. There is an obligation on the members of the Committee to deliver a reasoned judgment on the credibility of the asylum seeker. 

Application for annulment of a decision by the Minister of Public Order 

The lack of personal persecution of an alien applicant does not preclude the recognition of refugee status if it is shown that there is an objective and well-founded fear of individual persecution in the applicant's country.

The case also addressed the deficient reasoning for the deviation in the Minister for Public Order's decision from the opinion issued by the competent Committee.  

Application for annulment of a decision by the Minister of Public Order 

The contested ministerial decision, which held that the applicant's application for recognition as a refugee should be rejected because  threats emanating from non-state actors do not constitute a well-founded fear of persecution within the meaning of the 1951 Convention, is in direct violation of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention.

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.

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 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. 

The application concerned the violations of Articles 2, 3 and 13 of the Convention following police officers’ excess powers used against the applicant during his arrest. The Court held that to be a violation of Article 2.