Case summaries
This decision concerns an appeal lodged before the Supreme Court against the decision of the High National Court, confirming the Ministry of Interior’s decision to revoke the refugee status of the appellant and her children. This revocation was issued following the voluntary return of the applicant’s husband to Colombia, his country of origin.
This applicant in this case was HIV positive. He was receiving treatment in Ireland while he was an asylum-seeker. Challenging a deportation order made against him, he claimed that he would be exposed to serious discrimination and stigmatisation in Nigeria and would have difficulty accessing treatment in public hospitals because of discriminatory attitudes of medical staff towards persons with HIV/AIDS.
The Court held that an inferior standard of medical treatment resulting from discriminatory attitudes towards a particular social group does not amount to persecution for a 1951 Refugee Convention reason unless it was associated with an unwillingness or inability on the part of the relevant authorities to protect members of the group from such ill-treatment.
The Court also found that it is only in exceptional cases that stigmatisation and discrimination on the part of even a large number of individuals constituted ill-treatment which comes within the scope of the prohibition in section 5 of the Refugee Act 1996 or the protection of Art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and probably would require a minimum level of severity and clear evidence that the ill-treatment was so endemic and institutionalised as to raise a presumption that it was official policy or condoned by state authorities.
The applicant is not entitled to protection from deportation within the meaning of Section 60 (7) (2) of the Residence Act / Art 15 (c) of the Qualification Directive as the levels of indiscriminate violence in his home area are not characterised by a sufficient "density of danger".
This case concerned the concept of “particular social group." The CALL held that persons of the same sex can, in certain societies, be considered as a “particular social group.” The applicant, a victim of forced prostitution, was granted international protection on the basis of her belonging to the social group of women.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled that Turkey had violated Article 5 para 1 and 4 of the Convention with regards to the applicant’s unlawful detention and lack of remedy to challenge the lawfulness of his deprivation of liberty. Further, it found a violation of Article 34.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled that Turkey had violated Article 5 para 1 and 4 of the Convention with regards to the applicant’s unlawful detention and lack of remedy to challenge the lawfulness of his deprivation of liberty. Further, it found a violation of Article 34.
The House of Lords confirmed that in addition to establishing a real risk of harm, the applicant would also have to show that their state has failed to provide reasonable protection.
Trafficking in human beings falls under the prohibition of Art. 4 of the Convention. Consequently, state parties have the positive obligation:
- to adopt an adequate and comprehensive legal framework to combat this criminal offence;
- to undertake protective measures whenever the authorities are aware or ought to have been aware of a serious risk of a person being subject to trafficking;
- and to appropriately investigate situations of potential trafficking.
The withdrawal of practical protection against deportation for subsequent applications is lawful and does not represent an infringement of the right to an effective remedy (Art 13 ECHR), if the legality of the withdrawal is examined by the Asylum Court.