Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Reset
Belgium - Council for Alien Law Litigation, X v. Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons, No. 258 932, 02/08/2021
Country of applicant: Ivory Coast
Keywords: Country of origin information, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Inadmissible application

HIV-related marginalisation and discrimination can reach the threshold of seriousness to establish persecution but is not sufficient to be granted international protection. In order to benefit from international protection, it must be established that there are personal reasons for a well-founded fear of being persecuted due to HIV-contamination. In this context, seropositivity can be regarded as being part of a social group, which is a valid persecution ground.  In the case at hand, the Court took into account aspects of vulnerability which are unrelated to HIV-status.

Date of decision: 02-08-2021
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 1,Art 15 (c),Art 15 (a),Art 15 (b),Art 2 (e),Art 4.1,Art 7.2,Art 4.2,Art 4.3,Art 9.2,Art 4.3 (e),Art 10.1 (a),Art 18,Art 23.2,Art 24.2,Art 10.1 (d),Art 2 (k),Art 12.2 (c),Art 10.1 (e),Art 9.3,Art 10.1 (b),Art 3,Art 4.4,Art 9.2 (f),Art 4.3 (c),Art 6 (c),Recital 6,Recital 7,Art 8.1,Art 8.2,Art 4.3 (a),Art 4.3 (b),Art 4.3 (d),Recital 1,Recital 2,Recital 3,Recital 4,Recital 5,Recital 8,Recital 9,Recital 10,Recital 17,Recital 18,Recital 21,Recital 24,Recital 25,Recital 26,Art 13,Art 2 (g),Art 7.1 (a),Recital 27,Art 5.1,Art 4.5,Art 23.4,Art 31,Art 39,Art 1A,Art 10.2,Art 10.1 (c),Art 12.2,Art 12.3,Recital 11,Recital 22,Art 17.2,Art 17.1 (c),Art 9.1,Art 32,Art 9.2 (b),Art 9.2 (c),Art 7.1,Art 12.2 (b),Art 12.2 (a),Art 11.1 (d),Recital 16,Recital 12,Recital 13,Para 201,Para 77,Art 5.2,Art 19.1,Art 16.1,Art 12.1 (a),Art 17.1,Art 19.3 (a),Art 19.3 (b),Art 20.3,Art 17.1 (d),Art 9.1 (a),Art 2 (c),Art 9.1 (b),Art 12.1,Para 53,Art 38,Art 8.3,Art 14.3 (b),Art 14.3,Art 4.5 (d),Art 17.1 (b),Art 21.2,Art 9.2 (d),Art 2 (b),Art 12.1 (b),Art 14.2,Recital 20,Art 14.4 (b),Art 14.1,Art 14.5,Art 5.3,Art 11.1 (e),Art 20.6,Art 2 (h),Art 9.2 (a),Recital 15,Art 21.1,Art 2 (f),Art 14.3 (a),Art 11.2,Art 6 (a),Art 9.2 (e),Art 17.1 (a),Recital 14,Recital 19,Recital 23,Recital 28,Recital 29,Recital 30,Recital 31,Recital 32,Recital 33,Recital 34,Recital 35,Recital 36,Recital 37,Recital 38,Recital 39,Recital 40,Art 2 (a),Art 2 (d),Art 2 (i),Art 4.5 (a),Art 4.5 (b),Art 4.5 (c),Art 4.5 (e),Art 6 (b),Art 7.1 (b),Art 7.3,Art 11.1 (a),Art 11.1 (b),Art 11.1 (c),Art 11.1 (f),Art 14.4,Art 14.4 (a),Art 14.6,Art 16.2,Art 17.3,Art 19.2,Art 19.4,Art 20.1,Art 20.2,Art 20.4,Art 20.5,Art 20.7,Art 21.2 (a),Art 21.2 (b),Art 21.3,Art 22,Art 23.1,Art 23.3,Art 23.5,Art 2 (j),Art 24.1,Art 25.1,Art 26.1,Art 26.2,Art 26.3,Art 26.4,Art 26.5,Art 28.1,Art 28.2,Art 29.1,Art 29.2,Art 29.3,Art 30.1,Art 30.2,Art 30.3,Art 30 (a),Art 30 (b),Art 30 (c),Art 30 (d),Art 30.4,Art 30.5,Art 30.6,Art 33.1,Art 33.2,Art 34,Art 35,Art 36,Art 37,Art 40,Article 10
Austria: Constitutional Court, 3. July 2015, U 32/2014-12
Country of applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Exclusion from protection, Subsidiary Protection, Withdrawal of protection application

The Court expressed doubts as to whether it is constitutionally permissible to base the withdrawal of subsidiary protection on a “final conviction of a crime” without taking the circumstances of the individual case into account. The Austrian provision might not be in line with the requirements as set out by the European Union Directive 2004/83/EC and might therefore be unconstitutional.

Date of decision: 03-07-2015
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 17.1,Art 19.3 (a),Art 19.3 (b),Article 47,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011
Belgium – Council for Alien Law Litigation, 22 July 2010, Nr. 46.578
Country of applicant: Iraq
Keywords: Revocation of protection status, Serious harm, Subsidiary Protection

The CALL ruled that the Qualification Directive, with reference to the grounds for revocation, clearly shows a difference between the various types of protection and that there is no indication that the Belgian legislator wished to deviate from this. Subsidiary protection can be revoked on the basis of a “serious crime” committed after protection was granted.

Date of decision: 22-07-2010
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,Art 2 (e),Art 17.2,Art 17.1,Art 19.3 (a),Art 19.3 (b),EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 3