Case summaries
The Administrative Court lawfully decided that the applicant was not entitled to refugee status since, in the present case, a possible risk of being subjected to acts of persecution was not connected to the reasons for persecution. The group of "businessmen in Colombia" cannot be regarded as a "particular social group" within the meaning of Art. 10.1 (d) of the Qualification Directive.
The right to obtain information about the whereabouts of a disappeared family member, as well as publicising the information concerning the disappearance, belong, according to the Czech Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedom, to political rights. Therefore, the applicant must be granted asylum if he had been persecuted for exercising this right.
Country of origin information must be up-to-date and balanced. A report of the European Commission evaluating Turkey as potential member of the EU is political and biased, and should only be used as a supporting document.
The security and humanitarian situation in Kabul does not meet the standards for a “situation of extreme risk” (extreme Gefahrenlage) for a returnee who grew up in Kabul. Art 15 (c) of the Qualification Directive requires that a particular risk resulting from an armed conflict is substantiated.
This case concerned the removal of a Sri Lankan national of Tamil ethnicity to Sri Lanka. The Court held that he belonged to a specific group all of whose members were at risk of ill-treatment and so could not be returned. The Applicant did not need to show that he was more at risk than others in this group. The case concerned a situation of generalized violence in Sri Lanka.
This case concerned actors of protection and found with reference to Art 7 of the Qualification Directive that the existence of an effective legal system is not an independent factor for considering the question of whether adequate protection can be provided.
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.
This case concerned an appeal against a decision of the Ministry of Interior (MOI) to refuse a grant of asylum. Having regard to a report from the country of origin, the MOI classified the applicant´s account as not credible. In his appeal, the applicant challenged this decision on the grounds that the MOI did not ascertain the real state of affairs, using only one source of information. The appeal was successful. The Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) held that the country of origin information must be verified from various sources and laid down other conditions for using the country of origin information.
The Court of Appeal considered a piece of legislation that required judges and decision-makers to “take into account, as damaging” to an asylum application’s credibility, certain specified behaviour, including the failure to claim asylum in a safe third country. The Court held that the relevant legislation must be interpreted in a way which is consistent with constitutional principles and which allowed the judiciary to make a global assessment of credibility in the individual case. If the legislation was interpreted as a direction it would risk distorting the fact-finding exercise conducted by the judiciary.