Case summaries

If a subsequent asylum application is based on circumstances which the applicant has created by his own decision, refugee status shall not be granted if the applicant was able to develop his own political conviction at the time of the (termination of the) preceding asylum procedure. This can be assumed to be the case at the age of 16, or at the age of 18 at the latest.

The Office of Immigration and Nationality (OIN) found the applicant not credible and therefore did not assess the risk of serious harm. Instead the OIN granted protection against refoulement. The Metropolitan Court ruled that the OIN was obliged to assess conditions for subsidiary protection and serious harm even if the applicant was not found credible.

The applicants, who had been recognised as refugees by UNHCR, faced risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 upon Turkey’s proposed  deportation of them to either Iran or Iraq. They had no effective opportunity to make an asylum claim or challenge their deportation. Further their detention had no legal justification and they had been unable to challenge its lawfulness. The Court found violations of Article 3, 13, 5(1), 5(2) and 5(4). 

A decision to expel a child with a serious medical condition that may lead to death without treatment, to Poland, when that child has previously been refused medical treatment in Poland, gave rise to a real risk of a violation of Art 3 ECHR. The decision had been taken arbitrarily because the necessary investigations in relation to the child’s medical condition had not been made.

The European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Article 3 with regards to the applicant’s detention conditions in Soufli and Attiki (Petrou Rali). It further found a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 due to the unlawful detention of the applicant and the lack of remedies to challenge it.

Intimidation, loss of employment, humiliation, personal injury inflicted for reasons of sexual orientation and national legislation penalising homosexuals qualify as acts of persecution.

It is in violation of Art 13 of the ECHR (Right to an Effective Remedy) in conjunction with Art 3 of the ECHR (Prohibition of Torture) that the applicant may not await the court’s decision on his request for a temporary injunction against his expulsion in the Netherlands, even though he has an arguable claim under Art 3 of the ECHR. Further that Art 39 of the Procedures Directive is not correctly implemented in Dutch law.

This case concerned a challenge to the Tribunal’s conduct of a asylum appeal hearing (alleged pre-judging of the case against the applicant due to an argument with the applicant’s lawyer) as well as the Tribunal’s reasoning (alleged flaws in credibility analysis and failure to share investigative burden with the applicant, as required by UNHCR handbook). The challenge was unsuccessful.

Internal protection has to be assessed in accordance with the Qualification Directive, and under very strict criteria. The possibility of relocating to another part of the country has to be available to the applicant and the protection has to be effective.