Case summaries
The Applicant falls within the scope of application of Article 1(D) of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. She was excluded from refugee status as she did not show that she left the area where she was receiving support from the UNRWA for reasons against her will.
Application from the Turkish Authorities to have the Greek Judicial Authorities issue an extradition notice against A.F., a Turkish citizen seeking asylum in Greece.
The Court ruled against the Turkish Authorities' extradition request, deciding that if the person in question were extradited to Turkey there would be a risk that her situation would be made worse because of her political beliefs and because of her pending application to have her refugee status recognised by the Greek state.
The CALL ruled that the discrimination or ill treatment suffered by homosexuals in Senegal did not amount to all homosexuals of Senegalese origin having reason to fear persecution in Senegal on the sole basis of their sexual orientation.
This case concerned forced child labour in ther country of origin and sexual exploitation of the daughter of an Ethiopian father and an Eritrean mother, strained relations between the two countries, mass expulsions on the basis of ethnic origin, absence of a family network in the country of origin, total illiteracy, unequal treatment of single women, and an inability to integrate into society.
In relation to the absence of a family network, the case considered the stigma which may be suffered as a member of the particular social group of “single women in Ethiopia”.
Should she return to Ethiopia, it was considered likely that the Applicant would be totally ostracised to such an extent that she would be unable to integrate into society and enjoy her legal rights.
Recalling the direct applicability of the Qualification Directive (Article 28, 29, recital 34), the Labour and Social Court of Vienna held that the refusal of a care allowance for beneficiaries of subsidary protection status was unlawful. The (minimum) core benefits to be granted to beneficiaries of subsidary protection status are to include at least support in the event of illness, whereby in accordance with Community law, the Austrian care allowance represented such support in the event of illness.
This judgment overturned the decision of the Polish Refugee Board on examination of a manifestly unfounded application, on refusal to accord refugee status, provide subsidiary protection or grant a permit for tolerated stay, and on deportation from the Republic of Poland
In the proceedings, the foreigner stressed that he had left his country of origin as a child and currently has no family there, and that his entire family resides legally in Poland (they were granted a permit for tolerated stay in refugee proceedings). As the decision on refusal of protection is linked to the decision on deportation, refusal of protection would result in the Applicant being unable to see his family for many years. Therefore, in the Applicant’s opinion, the decision on deportation constituted interference in his family life, since it would result in him being separated from his family.
The Court found that the authority should properly examine and address the allegations made by the Applicant and thus consider the foreigner’s individual and family circumstances in the context of the possible application of Article 8 of the Convention, including the length of his stay in Poland, the possible obstacles to him living in his country of origin, and the likely effects on the Applicant’s family if the family was to be separated by the Applicant moving to another country.
Female genital mutilation constitutes an act of persecution relating to membership of a particular social group and, if it is established that such mutilation could specifically affect the Applicant, constitutes a reason for granting refugee status under Article 2 and subsequent articles of Legislative Decree No 251 of 19.11.2007, implementing Directive 2004/83/EC.
This inadmissibility decision concerned the transfer of Mrs. Hussein and her children to Italy from the Netherlands under the Dublin II Regulation. The Court found the applicant’s complaints under Article 3 ECHR and Article 13 ECHR as manifestly unfounded within the meaning of Article 35(3)(a) of the Convention. The Court found that though there were shortcomings in Italy it did not disclose systemic failures to provide support for asylum seekers there.
A Gambian asylum seeker’s account of approximately eight years’ imprisonment and torture there was not considered credible. The Immigration Service and the Helsinki Supreme Administrative Courtconsidered the application to be manifestly unfounded and the Supreme Administrative Court did not give leave to appeal on the matter. The UN Committee against Torture had, however, requested that the Applicant not be returned to his home country, The Gambia, until UNCAT had examined the complaint.
The ruling administrative body is obliged to try to make a decision within the time limit in international protection proceedings; an extension of the time limit must be duly justified and supported by the facts of the case. Absolute inactivity on the part of the ruling body cannot be justified by the instability of the situation in the country of origin or the complexity of the case.