Case summaries

Greece - Council of State, 10 February 2009, Application No. 434/2009
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

A permit to stay, granted on humanitarian grounds to a foreigner whose application for asylum has been rejected until such time as it becomes feasible for him to go abroad, is of a temporary nature. It is possible to extend the validity of such a permit if there are exceptional circumstances relating to the prevailing situation in the foreigner's country of origin and/or relating to his personal circumstances. When an application to extend a permit to stay is submitted, the Administration should examine any exceptional grounds that may have been put forward.

Date of decision: 10-02-2009
Czech Republic - Supreme Administrative Court, 4 February 2009, R.S. v. Ministry of the Interior, 3 Azs 75/2008-109
Country of applicant: Sri Lanka

Unlike with subsidiary protection, it is necessary for there to be a causal link between persecution and the grounds for persecution when assessing the conditions for granting asylum. The fact that a conflict between LTTE and governmental armed units affected Tamil civilians does not mean nationality qualifies as a ground of persecution. 

Date of decision: 04-02-2009
Czech Republic - Supreme Administrative Court, 4 February 2009, Ö.S. v. Ministry of the Interior, 1 Azs 105/2008-81_
Country of applicant: Turkey

The judgment specifies standards for country of origin information to be used as proof in administrative and judicial proceedings. The evaluation report of the European Commission on the progress made by candidate countries is not intended for international protection proceedings, as these may only be used as supporting material together with other reports about the country of origin.

Date of decision: 04-02-2009
CJEU - C-19/08 Migrationsverket v Edgar Petrosian, Nelli Petrosian, Svetlana Petrosian, David Petrosian, Maxime Petrosian
Country of applicant: Ukraine

This case concerned the interpretation of Article 20(1)(d) and Article 20(2) of the Dublin Regulation and the analysis of time limits under these provisions when the Member State provides for suspensive effect of an appeal. The time limit for the period of implementation of the transfer begins to run, not as from the time of the provisional judicial decision suspending transfer but from the time of the judicial decision which rules on the merits of the procedure and which is no longer such as to prevent its implementation.

Date of decision: 29-01-2009
Ireland - High Court, 27 January 2009, E.P.I., N.A.I. & T.I. v Minister for Justice, Equality & Law Reform, [2009] IEHC 61
Country of applicant: Nigeria

In an application for subsidiary protection made after a failed refugee claim (and after a Deportation Order has been made), the Minister has a discretion to consider the application, which he can exercise if there is new information or altered circumstances. The absence of such means that that the Minister is entitled to refuse to entertain the application; there is no automatic right to make such an application at that late stage of proceedings.

Date of decision: 27-01-2009
Ireland - High Court, 23 January 2009, V.O. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform & Anor, [2009] IEHC 21
Country of applicant: Nigeria

This concerned whether the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner (ORAC) were required to make an assessment of subsidiary protection, and whether ORAC were obliged to examine country of origin information in every case. The court found that ORAC were not required to make a subsidiary protection assessment. The Court held that ORAC were not obliged to examine country of origin information in every case.

Date of decision: 23-01-2009
Germany - Federal Administrative Court, 19 January 2009, 10 C 52.07
Country of applicant: Russia, Russia (Chechnya)

The term "act of persecution" within the meaning of the Qualification Directive requires that an intentional infringement of a basic right as defined in Art. 9.1 of the Qualification Directive takes place. If the applicant has suffered past persecution (before his/her flight), it is no longer possible to deny refugee status solely on the ground that an internal protection alternative had existed in another part of the country of origin at the time of the flight (change of legal situation in the light of Art. 4.4 of the Qualification Directive).   

Date of decision: 19-01-2009
Hungary – Metropolitan Court, 16 January 2009, L.M.N. v. Office of Immigration and Nationality, 17.K.32.826/2007/15
Country of applicant: Kenya

The Kenyan applicant was a potential victim of female genital mutilation (FGM) and she faced forced marriage upon return. The Court stated that even if there was a risk of persecution in case of a return to the country of origin, the applicant could reasonably be expected to relocate internally as it was feasible in the circumstances.

Date of decision: 16-01-2009
Sweden - Migration Court of Appeal, 14 January 2009, UM 4118-07
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

The Migration Board set out the burden of proof for presenting an internal protection alternative. The area has to be clearly identified as well as being relevant and plausible.

Date of decision: 14-01-2009
Spain - High National Court, 13 January 2009, 1528/2007
Country of applicant: Algeria

The Ministry of Interior rejected the asylum claim of an Algerian woman who requested protection based on gender persecution by a non-state agent. The High National Court, on appeal, ruled that gender is considered as a “particular social group” and that it is not necessary that the persecution is carried out by state actors but also by non-state actors under certain circumstances. The applicant was granted Refugee status.

Date of decision: 13-01-2009