Case summaries
The Applicant challenged the first instance decision and was granted refugee status on the basis of a fear of persecution on grounds of his imputed political opinion, which was not identified by the asylum authority (OIN). The asylum authority considered Kabul as an alternative for internal protection, which was rejected by the Court since the Applicant had no family ties and employment in Kabul, which is getting overpopulated and residents are threatened by terrorist attacks.
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.
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.
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 judgment recognised the refugee status of a Guinean Applicant who had been the victim of a forced marriage and domestic violence. Various elements, in particular psychological evidence, explained lack of precision in her account.
An applicant of Palestinian origin was granted refugee status. UNWRA assistance ceased for reasons beyond the applicant’s control, and therefore the applicant is entitled ipso facto to the benefits provided by the Convention. Consequently, refugee status must be granted automatically.
There has been a violation of Article 47 (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union if there is a failure to hold a hearing at the Asylum Court, notwithstanding that the facts of the case are not sufficiently clear. Merely general statements without reference to the case in point do not represent sufficient grounds for the lack of credibility of the submission.
The Applicant, an unaccompanied Afghan minor, stated that he had left his home country owing to his abduction and the threat of sexual abuse by the local ruler. The right to a decision by the statutory judge was violated by the fact that the decision on the application for international protection was made by a court panel consisting of two judges, one male and one female.
A Somalian citizen, claiming to be from Mogadishu, had applied for international protection due to the lack of safety in his/her native country and human rights violations infringements in Mogadishu. According to his/her language assessment, he/she clearly didn’t speak the Somalian spoken in Southern Somalia but manifestly spoke the Somalian spoken in Northern Somalia. The language assessment alone was not considered to be enough proof of domicile but taking into account his/her scant local knowledge of Mogadishu and partially contradictory accounts, it was deemed that he/she in fact was from Northern Somalia, Somaliland. According to the report, the appellant and his/her underage children whom he/she brought along to Finland were not in need of international protection.
This was a decision of the Polish Refugee Board of 31 January 2013 to uphold that part of the decision of the Head of the Polish Office for Foreigners which concerned refusal to accord refugee status and to overturn the remainder of the decision as well as to grant subsidiary protection.
In the course of criminal proceedings conducted against a foreigner in Poland it was revealed to Iranian consular officials that the foreigner concerned was being held at the Centre for Foreigners seeking refugee status in Dębak. This could have been tantamount to disclosing that the foreigner was applying for refugee status in Poland. Although it is not known whether the foreigner would have suffered repression from the authorities upon returning to Iran, such a possibility cannot be excluded. This circumstance does not fall within the concept of particular social group. However, considering the scale of human rights abuses in Iran and the unpredictability of the regime, there exists a real threat of torture or of inhuman or degrading treatment.