Case summaries
A former Chechen fighter was not excluded from refugee status as active participation in the Second Chechen War in itself does not constitute a war crime. The clashes that have taken place in Chechnya since 1999 represent an internal armed conflict according to Art. 8 of the ICC Statute.
The court found that a prohibition of deportation under Section 60 (2) of the Residence Act (corresponding to Art. 15 (b) of the Qualification Directive) was established due to the existence of a general risk of persecution in case of return to Syria. The Administrative Court, in their assessment of risk, went far beyond the prevailing case law, particularly that of the High Administrative Courts.
A particular mode of persecution cannot be detected in Syria due to the arbitrariness and the juxtaposition of different intelligence services, whose impact cannot be predicted.
A further deterioration of the situation has occurred in light of recent developments and the bloody suppression of the protest movements.
Currently even persons who have not been politically active in exile are, with considerable probability, at risk of being arrested on return, not only for a short period - they are also at risk of torture and other inhuman treatment.
The guidance in HJ (Iran) (see separate summary in this database) should be applied, by analogy, in cases where the applicant feared persecution on account of their religion. Consequently, the Tribunal had to consider the reason why an Ahmadi applicant for asylum had modified his behaviour by preaching only to people who would not put him at risk of persecution.
A subsequent application for asylum, when there is a legally enforceable expulsion order, must be examined even if a stay on expulsion has been requested by the European Court of Human Rights according to Rule 39.
A failure to apply the Sovereignty Clause in Article 3.2 of Regulation (EC) 343/03 is unlawful when the applicant is in a seriously compromised state of health.
The applicant was recognised as a refugee because of a threat of forced marriage in Afghanistan. The court found that rights violations resulting from forced marriage, including the use of physical and psychological violence, constitute severe violations of basic human rights according to Art. 9 (1) (b) of the Qualification Directive. The applicant belonged to the particular social group of "unmarried women from families whose traditional self-image demands a forced marriage." The Afghan State is neither willing nor able to protect women against persecution in case of forced marriage. Internal protection was not available to the applicant.
This case concerned the exclusion from refugee status of a former Baath party member. The fact that the applicant had previously held a position in the Iraqi military, was one of the Defence Minister's advisers and one of Saddam Hussein's closest men, was, on the evidence before the Court, considered insufficient to meet the requirements for exclusion from refugee status.
Refugee status was revoked when an individual applied for and received a new passport issued by his/her country of origin.
It is in principle possible for men to be persecuted on account of their gender. However, classifying the punishment for extramarital sex in Afghanistan as persecution on account of both membership of the group of men and the group of women would cover the entire society and renders the definition meaningless. Therefore, the applicant was not granted refugee status but his deportation was prohibited under Section 60 (2) of the Residence Act / Art 15 (b) of the Qualification Directive.