Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Reset
UK – F v M and A (a child) and Secretary of State for the Home Department Joint Counsel for the Welfare of Immigrants (Interested Party), Case No: FD15P00103, 26/04/2017
Country of applicant: Pakistan
Keywords: Actor of persecution or serious harm, Best interest of the child, Relevant Facts, Refugee Status, Child Specific Considerations, Family member, Return

Following the careful examination of International, European and domestic law, the Court concluded that the grant of refugee status supersedes any order made by a Family Court (regarding the return of the child to Pakistan), because it is the Secretary of State for the Home Department  that is the entrusted public authority to deal with asylum matters.  However, were the Family Court to discover new facts, the relevant public authority would be responsible, in principle, under the tenets of UK Administrative Law to review their decision. 

Date of decision: 26-04-2017
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005,Art 2,Art 18,Art 24,Art 12,Art 17,Art 15,Art 4,Art 4,Art 8,Art 13,Art 14,Art 10,Art 12,Art 14,Art 1,Art 1A,Art 32,Art 21,Art 33,Art 13,Art 37,Art 38,Art 7,Recital 12,Art 22,Art 41,Article 3,Article 8
Belgium – Council for Alien Law Litigation, 10 February 2017, n 182.109
Country of applicant: Congo (DRC)
Keywords: Exclusion from protection

After having committed several offences qualified as being of a ‘particular gravity’, Mr.O’s refugee status was revoked on April 21st 2006.

Upon appeal to the Council of Alien Law Litigation (‘CALL’), the question of the validity of article 55/3/1 of December 15th 1980 law (the ‘1980 Law’) arose. Although it is established that this provision is transposing article 14(4) of the Directive 2011/95/EU, its compatibility with the Geneva Convention must be verified.

The Council refuses then to pronounce itself on the question, arguing the competency of such matter is vested in the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Date of decision: 10-02-2017
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,Art 2,Art 12,Art 17,Recital 4,Recital 21,Art 14,Art 1,Art 1A,Art 32,Art 1F,Art 33,Recital 16,Recital 12,European Union Law,International Law,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 18,Recital 14,Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010/C 83/01,Article 78
Slovenia - Administrative Court of the Republic of Slovenia, 14 february 2012, I U 42/2012,
Country of applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Best interest of the child, Country of origin information, Persecution (acts of), Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Subsidiary Protection, Unaccompanied minor, Membership of a particular social group, Child Specific Considerations

When reaching a decision, the Defendant should have protected the best interest of the child. Taking into account the fact that the Applicant is a minor and providing legal representation for a minor applicant, are necessary elements in the process of demonstrating and establishing the facts. The principle of protecting the best interest of the child has to be enforced when assessing the risk that the absolute rights of the child might be violated if he is returned to his country of origin and needs to be reflected in the Defendant’s burden of proof as well as in the rules and standards of  evidence (in relation to subsidiary protection).

The Defendant should already have started searching for parents during the procedure for international protection and not only once the procedure for removing the child from the state has begun.   

Threats and violence against a person’s family members can be considered as acts of persecution where that person is connected to the facts which previously led to the violence..

The Plaintiff needs to state all circumstances known to him in relation to his persecution; however he does not need to establish a material and legal connection between the persecution and the reasons for persecution.

The fact that somebody is a child in Afghanistan can mean that he belongs to particular social group.

Date of decision: 14-02-2012
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 17,Recital 12,Art 20,Article 24,Art 24.2,Art 24.3,Art 20.5,3.,Article 3,UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
UK - Court of Appeal, 14 July 2003, B (R on the application of) v Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Merton [2003] EWHC 1689
Country of applicant: Ivory Coast
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Child Specific Considerations
This case sets out the requirements for a fair assessment of age when an undocumented individual‘s claim to be a child is disputed.
Date of decision: 14-07-2003
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,Recital 12