Case summaries
The case concerned a woman who feared return to Sierra Leone because she would face gender specific persecution in the form of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). The issue was whether she was entitled to recognition as a refugee because she feared persecution on account of her membership of a particular social group. Her appeal was allowed on the basis that women in Sierra Leone and, alternatively, uninitiated women who had not been subjected to FGM in Sierra Leone, were particular social groups.
The case concerned the issue of whether ‘family’ constitutes a particular social group. The applicant was recognised as a refugee on the basis of her well founded fear of persecution as a member of her husband’s family.
Multiple violations of the Convention by the Belgian Government by detaining an unaccompanied five-year-old child at a transit centre for adult foreigners, removing her and conditions in which she was removed to her home country. Distress and anxiety of the mother as a result of her daughter’s detention and deportation resulted in a number of violations of the Convention.
The sexual orientation of the Applicant for asylum may, depending on circumstances and with regard to the situation in the country of origin, be considered a sign of his membership of a particular social group. The threat of injury to the Applicant for asylum as a result of actions causing psychological pressure may not be as serious as injuries that result in threats to life or freedom, but must be at least of a comparable type.
The UNHCR Handbook is an important source of law concerning the procedure to determine protection needs. The Migration Court is responsible for ensuring that a case is sufficiently investigated by holding an oral hearing or otherwise investigating the ambiguities of the case, when an asylum seeker who has been rejected because of credibility grounds has submitted relevant documents that are deemed to be genuine by a Swedish embassy.
This case concerned the application of Art 10.1 (d) of the Qualification Directive, as applied to lesbians from Iran. It was found that the "particular social group", described as homosexual (lesbian) women, has a distinct identity in Iran, because they are perceived as being different by the surrounding society (Art. 10.1 (d) (1) of the Qualification Directive).
Further, that there is a high likelihood that a homosexual relationship between women would be persecuted when detected, because it constitutes a breach of a cultural norm, even worse than among homosexual (gay) men.
The European Parliament sought the annulment of Article 4(1), Article 4(6) and Article 8 of the Family Reunification Directive, as being incompatible with the right to respect for family life and non-discrimination based on age.
The Court found that these provisions created a limited margin of appreciation for Member States which was no greater than that allowed for in ECtHR case law, and could be exercised compatibly with fundamental rights.
The provisions regarding the establishment and operation of Refugee Centres do not constitute a basis for ordering foreigners to stay in the said Centres, under penalty of having the asylum application procedure halted, on the sole ground that the police authorities consider their applications for asylum to be manifestly unfounded. The Refugee Centres were not established as centres where foreigners would be obliged to live – under penalty of halting the process of examining their applications for leave to remain – until the process had been completed, if those foreigners wish to and are able to stay elsewhere during the procedure, unless the Administration states that the measure is necessary for a specific and fully justified reason of public interest.
The European Court of Human Rights found that the authorities in the Netherlands had violated the right to family life of five Ethiopian nationals by not allowing them to be reunited in the Netherlands.