Case summaries

This Judicial Review concerned the way in which the Minister for Justice should assess applications for subsidiary protection and, in particular, whether the duty to ‘co-operate’ with the applicant  referred to in Art 4.1 of the Qualification Directive 2004/83/EC means that the decision maker must communicate matters of concern to the applicant before making a final decision. As there appeared to be a conflict between the Irish and Dutch interpretations of Art 4.1, and uncertainty as to the true meaning of the phrase ‘in co-operation with’ the Court (Hogan J) referred a question to the CJEU.

Greater caution is required when applying an internal protection alternative to families with children than to adults without children. The Kurdish controlled areas of northern Iraq cannot be considered as a relevant and reasonable flight option for a Christian family, as the Migration Board was not able to show that there currently is no requirement for sponsorship, either to enter or to legally establish oneself there.

An internal protection alternative must be relevant and reasonable. Relevant means that the location is accessible to the individual in a practical, safe and legal manner. The individual must also have access to effective protection at the location. That the option should be reasonable means that an individual assessment of the individual's ability to settle in a new location should be made, and of whether he or she has a social network. There ought also to be a realistic possibility for the individual to support himself and be able to live in a way that does not involve unnecessary suffering or hardship.

The Respondent concluded that the Appellant represents a danger to the security of the Slovak Republic, although there was no information in the administrative file on the basis of which it might reach such a conclusion (valid premise). It is thus a clear case of the findings of fact (that the Appellant represents a danger to the security of the Slovak Republic) being in conflict with the contents of the file. Such a situation constitutes a ground for setting aside a contested decision under the provisions of Section 250j(2) of the Civil Procedure Code.

If the Respondent had information on the basis of which it reached a valid premise, according to which the Appellant represents a danger to the security of the Slovak Republic, this must exist in a form (usually written) which enables the parties to the proceedings, their representatives or the reviewing authority to acquaint themselves with the contents thereof. If, however, the Respondent, despite the existence of this information, failed to place it in the administrative file, the file must be regarded as incomplete, which constitutes a ground for setting aside a contested decision under the provisions of Section 250j(3) of the Civil Procedure Code.

The CALL confirmed that the need for protection should be assessed in relation to the country of nationality (or, for stateless persons, vis-à-vis the country of former habitual residence) and that this is not influenced by the fact that the applicant resided in a “safe third country” or in a “first country of asylum,” or has a “real residence alternative,” these concepts having no grounds in Belgian law. The CALL did however add that if the applicant has refugee or subsidiary protection status in another country, he/she has no direct interest in having that status also recognised in Belgium, except if he/she can demonstrate a fear of persecution or a real risk of serious harm in that other country. 

In applying Art 12 of the Qualification Directive concerning exclusion from refugee status, the decision-maker is required to conduct an individual assessment of the applicant’s circumstances and, specifically, of his own complicity, if any, in crimes against humanity.

Article 1F(b) of the 1951 Refugee Convention is applicable even if the sentence (for a serious non-political crime) has been served. The Court has to inquire whether the reception of the applicant in France represents a danger or a risk to the population.

Prostitutes who come from the State of Edo, and who are both victims of human trafficking and anxious to extricate themselves actively from these networks, form a group whose members are, by reason of these two common characteristics which define them, likely to be subjected to persecution within the meaning of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention, without being able to avail themselves of the protection of the Nigerian authorities. They are members of a particular social group.

The case concerned whether or not the applicant could relocate in her country of origin in order to be safe. Any such assessment had to be considered in light of whether or not the (local) authorities could offer sufficient protection to the applicant.