Case summaries

The Court stated that the applicant’s fear of persecution and serious threat, related to assaults by her former spouse  are unfounded because the Court believes that the applicant has a reasonable possibility of internal asylum in another part of her country of origin. Consequently, the Court rejected the applicant’s appeal  against the Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) decision refusing the grant of international protection).

The case refers to an administrative appeal before the Supreme Court brought by the Appellant against the High National Court’s judgment denying the right to asylum and subsidiary protection.

The Appellant is a Cameroonian national.In the application he claims to be a minor and that the grounds for persecution was his sexual orientation.

The Supreme Court upheld the appeal and reversed the challenged judgment.Furthermore the Court ordered a reconsideration of the administrative procedure from the beginning, in order to provide the asylum seeker with legal assistance.

Applications for leave to remain were rejected as the Applicant had already been granted refugee status in another EU state. No grounds supporting an examination of the asylum applications in Sweden emerged in the case.

Instead of non-refoulement, the Court granted the Applicant subsidiary protection status because he would be at risk of serious harm upon returning to his home country (torture, cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment).

The political activities carried out in Belgium by the Syrian Applicant justified granting him refugee status; he should not be confined to the subsidiary protection granted due to the indiscriminate violence generated by the armed conflict in Syria.

The Council for Alien Law Litigation confirmed that those who enjoy subsidiary protection are equivalent to recognised refugees, for the purposes of family reunification. This means that they are exempted from additional conditions in relation to housing, health insurance, and means of subsistence provided that the application for family reunification is submitted within one year and the family ties existed before the arrival in Belgium of the reuniting person (who enjoys subsidiary protection). This is despite the fact that those who enjoy subsidiary protection do not fall within the scope of application of the Family Reunification Directive.

The Court recognised the Applicant as a refugee because he would be at risk of persecution due to his political opinions upon returning to his home country.

The Applicant had been forced to leave the UNRWA’s area of operations. The facts that had led to his departure from Lebanon justified ending his exclusion from the application of Article 1D of the Geneva Convention.

Rather than dismissing the application, the Court recognised the subsidiary protection status of the Applicant, as his/her return to the country of origin would lead to the risk of serious harm (inhuman, degrading treatment or indiscriminate violence).

A foreigner shall cease to be eligible for subsidiary protection when the circumstances which led to the granting of subsidiary protection status have ceased to exist or have changed to such a degree that protection is no longer required. The relevant provision refers to two separate reasons that justify revoking subsidiary protection. The first is that the circumstances which led to the granting of such protection have ceased to exist. The second is that those circumstances have changed, although the change of circumstances must be of such a significant and non-temporary nature that the foreigner no longer faces a real risk of serious harm.

Subsidiary protection cannot establish a right that is comparable to, for instance, the right to obtain permission for temporary stay or indefinite leave to remain.