Case summaries

ECtHR - Diallo v Czech Republic, Application No. 20493/07
Country of applicant: Guinea

This case concerned access to an effective remedy in the context of expulsion proceedings from the Czech Republic. It deals with access to an effective remedy and the reliance on Art. 13 ECHR for arguable claims under Article 3 ECHR on the basis that the Appellants would be ill-treated if returned to Guinea. The Court held that there was a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3.

Date of decision: 28-11-2011
UK - Upper Tribunal, 28 November 2011, AMM and others v Secretary of state for the Home Department [2011] UKUT 00445
Country of applicant: Somalia

In this case the Tribunal considered the general country situation in Somalia as at the date of decision for five applicants, both men and women from Mogadishu, south or central Somalia, Somaliland and Puntland. The risk of female genital mutilation (FGM) was also considered.

Date of decision: 28-11-2011
France - CNDA, 25 November 2011, M.K., No. 10008275
Country of applicant: Kosovo

In order to assess the change of circumstances where refugee status ceased to exist, the competent authorities must “verify, having regard to the refugee’s individual situation, that the actor or actors of protection[…], which may include international organisations controlling the State or a substantial part of the territory of the State, including through the presence of a multinational force in that territory, have taken reasonable steps to prevent persecution, that they therefore operate, in particular, an effective legal system for the detention, prosecution and punishment of acts constituting persecution and that the national concerned will have access to such protection if he ceases to have refugee status”.

Date of decision: 25-11-2011
Sweden - Migration Court, 25 November 2011, UM 4879-11
Country of applicant: Ethiopia

An Ethiopian man was considered eligible for protection as a refugee due to his involvement in the government-hostile OLF guerilla group, which has been declared a terrorist organisation.

Date of decision: 25-11-2011
Czech Republic - Supreme Administrative Court, 25 Nov 2011, D.A. v Ministry of Interior, 2 Azs 100/2007-64
Country of applicant: Congo (DRC)

In cases concerning countries which are not democratic and secure decision-makers must not only look to ratified international treaties as evidence of the human rights situation. It is necessary to examine carefully how international obligations and the legal system as a whole are applied in practice.

Date of decision: 25-11-2011
Czech Republic - Supreme Administrative Court, 25 November 2011, V.S. v Ministry of Interior, 6 Azs 29/2010-85
Country of applicant: Israel

If an applicant for international protection has citizenship of one country and a place of last permanent residence in another country, the assessment of persecution or serious harm is considered primarily with regard to the country of nationality. The country of last permanent residence is examined in cases of stateless persons.

Date of decision: 25-11-2011
Austria - Asylum Court, 21 November 2011, C2 419963-2/2012
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

The Applicant fled to Austria to be with her husband. She pleaded no reasons for fleeing such as problems of living as a woman in Afghanistan and the Federal Asylum Agency also made no investigations into this aspect. Only in the appeal were specific women’s issues raised. The Asylum Court decided that the Federal Asylum Agency was obliged to undertake the appropriate investigations under apparent theoretical circumstances relevant to asylum (such as gender), even if the party did not initiate such a submission. 

Date of decision: 21-11-2011
UK - High Court, 18 November 2011, Medhanye, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 3012 (Admin)
Country of applicant: Eritrea
Keywords: Safe third country

The Administrative Court considered the proposed removal of the applicant from the UK to Italy under the Dublin Regulation. In applying MSS v Belgium and Greece and KRS v UK to applications to resist removal under the Dublin Regulation on human rights grounds, a system which protects the rights of asylum seekers should be presumed in other EU member states. The evidence must reveal a systemic failure on a significant scale for the presumption to be rebutted.  Particular weight would be given to the public statements of UNHCR and other intergovernmental bodies with appropriate mandates.  Little or no weight would usually be given to expert reports in such cases.

Date of decision: 18-11-2011
Germany - Federal Administrative Court, 17 November 2011, 10 C 13.10
Country of applicant: Iraq

When establishing the necessary “density of danger” in an internal armed conflict within the meaning of Section 60 (7) (2) Residence Act/Art. 15 (c) Qualification Directive, it is not sufficient to quantitatively determine the number of victims in the conflict. It is necessary to carry out an “evaluating overview” of the situation, which takes into account the situation of the health system. However, this issue was not decisive in the present case, as the applicant would only face a low risk of being seriously harmed.

Date of decision: 17-11-2011