Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Reset
CJEU - C-756/21 X v International Protection Appeals Tribunal and Others, 29 June 2023
Country of applicant: Pakistan

Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/83 requires the determining authority, under its duty of cooperation, to obtain up-to-date country of origin information and, where relevant, a medico-legal report on the applicant’s mental health; a breach of that duty does not automatically lead to annulment unless it may have affected the outcome.

Under Directive 2005/85, delays in the asylum procedure cannot be justified by legislative changes and, on their own, do not warrant setting aside a decision absent an impact on the outcome.

Article 4(5)(e) of Directive 2004/83 means that a false statement later explained and withdrawn at the first opportunity does not, by itself, undermine the applicant’s general credibility.

Date of decision: 29-06-2023
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 15 (c),Art 15 (a),Art 15 (b),Art 2 (e),Art 4.1,Art 4.3,Art 9.2,Art 10.1 (a),Art 23.2,Art 10.1 (d),Art 2 (k),Art 10.1 (e),Art 9.3,Art 10.1 (b),Art 9.2 (f),Art 39.1,Art 8.2,Art 2 (g),Recital 11,Art 23.2,Art 5.1,Art 4.5,Art 10.2,Art 10.1 (c),Art 9.1,Art 9.2 (b),Art 9.2 (c),Art 5.2,Art 9.1 (a),Art 2 (c),Art 9.1 (b),Art 39.1 (c),Art 8.3,Art 39.3 (b),Art 9.2 (d),Art 2 (b),Art 5.3,Art 2 (h),Art 9.2 (a),Art 2 (f),Art 9.2 (e),Article 47,Art 2 (a),Art 2 (d),Art 2 (i),Art 23.1,Art 2 (j),Art 28.1,Art 39.1 (a),Art 39.1 (a)(i),Art 39.1 (a)(ii),Art 39.1 (a)(iii),Art 39.1 (b),Art 39.1 (d),Art 39.1 (e),Art 39.2,Art 39.3,Art 39.3 (a),Art 39.3 (c),Art 39.4,Art 39.5,Art 39.6
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

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
Finland - Supreme Administrative Court, 28 June 2013, KHO:2013:119
Country of applicant: Russia

A Russian Federation citizen, originally from Chechnya, had applied for international protection in Finland due to threat of persecution based on his/her family’s political activities. The Applicant had been diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder because of torture. According to the Immigration Service, he/she could resort to internal relocation as specified in Section 88e of the Aliens Act and there were no grounds for granting international protection. The Administrative Court rejected the appeal. The Supreme Administrative Court took the view that the Applicant has had close ties to the Komi Republic and had no problems with the authorities while living there. Therefore he/she can be expected to rely on internal relocation to another part of the country, as specified in Article 88e of the Aliens Act and he/she was not in need of international protection.

Date of decision: 28-06-2013
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 15,Art 10,Art 4,Art 6,Art 8.1,Art 8.2,Art 21,Art 8.3,Article 3