Case summaries

Plea for an ab initio re-examination of an application for asylum. The Special Committee formed under Article 3(5) of Presidential Decree 61/1999 gave a positive opinion because the Applicant had been involved in political activities in his country, as a Kurd, against the ruling regime; and that activity had increased during his stay in Greece. The application for asylum was rejected by the Minister for Public Order without any specific justification for deviating from the Special Committee's clear opinion. When assessing whether there is evidence that a person seeking recognition as a refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution, the Administration may take account of information regarding the activities of the interested party's close relatives.

This case concerned service of the initial negative decision against an asylum application where the notice was served on the foreign applicant asylum seeker without specifying the language in which the applicant was informed of its content.  The court rejected an application for suspensive effect of the decision rejecting the asylum application in view of the pleas used by the applicant – of Palestinian origin – that he left his country for economic reasons, since there is no evidence that there is a risk of persecution should he return to Palestine, nor have any of the conditions for asylum on humanitarian grounds been met. The possible disruption to the lifestyle the applicant has created for himself whilst working in Greece does not constitute a reason to suspend any of the acts which form part of the asylum application examination procedure. 

This case concerned a Chinese applicant of Uyghur ethnicity who was granted residence and refugee status because of his sur place political activities in Sweden.

An Egyptian transgender woman, who first underwent gender reassignment surgery and hormone treatment in Austria, was recognised as a refugee as it was accepted that there were problems with the police,  a refusal to issue her a passport using her new personal data and social issues of an intensity relevant to asylum matters.

Application of the CJEU ‘s ruling of the 2 March 2010, Abdulla et al. Case C 175/08 et al, following the request for a preliminary ruling by the Federal Administrative Court.

The High Administrative Court was correct in holding that the circumstances upon which the recognition of refugee status was based have ceased to exist. However, it did not examine sufficiently whether a well-founded fear of persecution persists for other reasons.

The Migration Court of Appeal held that internal armed conflict prevails in all parts of southern and mid Somalia.

The suppression of the expression of racist opinions in a State does not constitute persecution pursuant to the 1951 Refugee Convention, if actions of this kind are considered justified and proportionate following analysisof the particular circumstances.

This case concerned the approach to be taken with evidence from witnesses. The CALL ruled that a witness statement from a private source cannot be automatically disregarded. The authority in charge of examining an application should examine whether the author of a witness statement can be identified, whether its content can be verified, and whether the information contained therein is sufficiently precise and coherent to usefully contribute to the assessment of the facts of the case.

It follows from the clear wording of Article 1D of the Refugee Convention that the clause contained therein on exclusion from refugee status applies only to persons who are actually making use of assistance provided by UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees in the Near East), and this must be interpreted strictly, i.e. it cannot also apply to persons who have made use of or might make use of protection or assistance. For the purposes of Article 12(1)(a), sentence one, of the Qualification Directive, according to the Court a person makes use of the protection or assistance of a UN agency other than the UNHCR when such a person is truly makes use of such protection or assistance.

This case concerned exclusion and confirmed that Art 12.2 of the Qualification Directive, should be interpreted so that the determining authority must perform an individual examination of the applicant’s case and assess the individual responsibility according to the objective and subjective criteria, as set out in the judgment of Germany v B and D.  In such cases, the burden of proof does not rest with the applicant but on the determining authority.