Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Reset
CJEU - C-199/12, C-200/12 and C-201/12, Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel v X, Y and Z
Country of applicant: Senegal, Sierra Leone, Uganda

LGBTI asylum seekers (1) may be members of particular social group, (2) cannot be expected to conceal or restrain their expression of sexual orientation to reduce risk of persecution. (3) All criminalisation does not per se amount to persecution, but imprisonment actually applied does.

Date of decision: 07-11-2013
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 1A (2),Art 1,Art 4.3,Art 9.2,Art 10.1 (d),Art 2 (k),Art 9.3,Art 4.4,Recital 3,Recital 10,Recital 17,Art 13,Art 9.1,Recital 16,Art 2 (c),Article 1,Article 2,Article 4,Article 7,Article 18,Art 5.1,Art 49.1,Art 49.2,Article 8,Article 14,Article 15
Germany - Federal Administrative Court, 25 June 2012, 10 B 6.12
Country of applicant: Russia

The shifting of the burden of proof according to Article 4 (4) of the Qualification Directive applies if the Applicant refers to previous acts of persecution or threats as an indicator of the well-foundedness of his fear that persecution would resume if he were to return to his home country.

If it is assumed that the individual concerned was under immediate threat of persecution associated with his ethnicity when he left his home country, then the link is not simply with the ethnicity of the individual concerned (Chechen in this case), but also with the enmity generally expressed by the persecuting security forces against this ethnic group and their presumed political convictions.

Date of decision: 25-06-2012
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 12,Art 9.3,Art 4.4,Art 10.2,Art 10.1 (c)
Hungary – Metropolitan Court, 5 October 2011, K.H. v. Office of Immigration and Nationality, 6.K. 34.440/2010/20
Country of applicant: Kosovo

Refugee status was granted to a Kosovar family of Roma origin based on their ethnicity being recognised as a particular social group. The court found that they faced a risk of persecution and that state protection was either unavailable or ineffective.

Date of decision: 05-10-2011
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,Art 10.1 (d),Art 4,Art 9.3,Art 1A,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 3
Germany - Administrative Court Berlin, 9 June 2011, 33 K 285.10 A
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

It is in principle possible for men to be persecuted on account of their gender. However, classifying the punishment for extramarital sex in Afghanistan as persecution on account of both membership of the group of men and the group of women would cover the entire society and renders the definition meaningless. Therefore, the applicant was not granted refugee status but his deportation was prohibited under Section 60 (2) of the Residence Act / Art 15 (b) of the Qualification Directive.

Date of decision: 09-06-2011
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,Art 9.2,Art 10.1 (d),Art 10.1 (e),Art 9.3,Art 6 (c),Art 10.2,Art 9.1,Art 2 (c)
Germany - High Administrative Court Sachsen-Anhalt, 25 May 2011, 3 L 374/09
Country of applicant: Syria

A stateless Kurd from Syria was not recognised as a refugee. The court held:

  1. The denial of re-entry of stateless Kurds is not to be considered political persecution because a general institutional practice cannot be detected which is aimed against ethnic Kurds in a manner that is relevant to asylum grounds (Art 10 of the Qualification Directive).
  2. Whether the legal practice of Syrian legislation on citizenship and the denial of re-entry are part of a restrictive policy towards Kurds, and support the aims of the State of Syria in respect of its settlement policy, is not important when determining political persecution under Section 60 (1) sentence (5) of the Residence Act in connection with Art. 9 and 10 Qualification Directive.
Date of decision: 25-05-2011
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,Art 15 (c),Art 10,Art 9.3,Art 4.3 (c),Art 9.1,Art 9.1 (a),Art 2 (c),EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 15
Finland - Supreme Administrative Court, 8 April 2011, KHO:2011:1012
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

The Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) returned the case to the Administrative Court for reconsideration based on the applicants' change of circumstance (conversion to Christianity in Finland) which only became apparent during the appeal before the SAC.

Date of decision: 08-04-2011
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,Art 7,Art 5,Art 9.3,Art 10.1 (b),Art 4.3 (d),EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 3
Finland - Helsinki Administrative Court, 23 March 2011, 11/0355/1
Country of applicant: Iran

The Helsinki Administrative Court held that the applicant was not considered at risk of persecution as it was unlikely that the Iranian authorities were aware of the applicant’s extramarital affair and the applicant was able to rely on her friends for support in different parts of Iran.

Date of decision: 23-03-2011
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,Art 7,Art 10.1 (d),Art 6,Art 9.3
Finland - Helsinki Administrative Court, 23 March 2011, 11/0355/1
Country of applicant: Iran

The Helsinki Administrative Court held that the applicant was not considered at risk of persecution as it was unlikely that the Iranian authorities were aware of the applicant’s extramarital affair and the applicant was able to rely on her friends for support in different parts of Iran.

Date of decision: 23-03-2011
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,Art 7,Art 10.1 (d),Art 6,Art 9.3
Czech Republic - Supreme Administrative Court, 25 January 2011, R.S. v Ministry of Interior, 6 Azs 36/2010-274
Country of applicant: Kyrgyzstan

According to the Qualification Directive, forced marriage, along with domestic violence and issues of faith, can be considered as persecution on a cumulative basis having regard to the situation in the country of origin.

Date of decision: 25-01-2011
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 7,Art 6,Art 9.3,Art 13,Art 9.1 (b)
Sweden - Migration Court, 20 May 2010, UM 4942-10
Country of applicant: Armenia

An Armenian opposition politician was considered a political refugee by the Migration Court of Appeal. Both the Migration Board and the Migration Court believed the applicant's political commitment and account of events. The Board considered, however, that the Armenian authorities' actions were not unreasonable and dismissed the application.

The Migration Court stated the fact that the applicant was not imprisoned for long periods did not imply that the arrests and ill-treatment that took place could be considered as acceptable measures by the authorities. Nor could the actions of the authorities be considered as reasonable or acceptable.  The applicant was considered to be the victim of persecution that was rooted in his political belief.

Date of decision: 20-05-2010
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 4,Art 9.3,Art 8