Case summaries

The basis for  a person’s detention under  5(1)(f) of the Convention  is legally untenable when there is a lack  of  a  realistic  prospect  of  the applicant’s expulsion  and  the domestic authorities fail to conduct the expulsion proceedings with due diligence.

After the expiry of the six months’ time limit for transfer, the responsibility for examining the applications for asylum lies with the Member State in which these applications were lodged. This Member State shall examine the applications in accordance with national asylum law.

If an applicant raises circumstances that could present a potential breach of Art 3 ECHR it is impossible to reject the application as manifestly unfounded. The case must be considered on its merits and the deciding authority needs to have accurate COI.

The protection provided by the 1951 Refugee Convention can only be afforded if it is established that the asylum applicant, for a valid reason linked to one of the grounds listed in Art 1A(2) of this Convention, is unable or unwilling to avail him/herself of the protection of the country(ies) of nationality or, for a stateless person, of the country of habitual residence. 

Academics are not a particular social group in the context of the refugee definition.

Vendetta constitutes a serious harm falling within the scope of subsidiary protection.

This case concerned the refusal of a Refugee appeal on the basis that Sate protection was available and/or that the applicant could relocate within Nigeria and avoid persecution.  In support of the finding that State was available; the Tribunal Member relied upon part of a UK Home Office Operational Guidance Note (OGN) on Nigeria that had not been provided to the applicant. The Court found that the applicant not afforded fair procedures. She had no opportunity to comment upon the information in the OGN. The Court also found that the issue of whether or not State protection is available does not depend upon the existence of a police complaints procedure but upon a determination that there exists in the country of origin as a matter of current practice, an effective system for the detection, investigation, prosecution and conviction of crimes of the kind which form the subject matter of the complaint.

Article 29(1), introductory paragraph and (b) of the Foreigners Act (2000) (which provides protection in the Netherlands against a potential breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights) provides for the same protection as Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive. The latter article therefore does not amend the law.

Article 29(1), introductory paragraph and (b) of the Foreigners Act (2000) (which provides protection in the Netherlands against a potential breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights) provides for the same protection as Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive. The latter article therefore does not amend the law.

This case concerned the interpretation of Article 4(4) of the Qualification Directive and the transposing Irish measure, which had added certain wording. The Court noted that the Directive left it open to Member States to introduce more favourable standards so long as they are compatible with the Directive. The Court held that the additional wording merely allowed a decision-maker in a case of compelling reasons, to determine eligibility for subsidiary protection as established without being obliged to be fully satisfied that previous serious harm inflicted upon an applicant runs a risk of being repeated.