Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
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

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
Germany - Federal Administrative Court, 1 March 2012, 10 C 7.11
Country of applicant: Togo

1. Changes in the home country are only considered to be sufficiently significant and non-temporary if the refugee’s fear of persecution can no longer be regarded as well-founded.
2. Based on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) which applies to the concept of “real risk” according to Article 3 ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights), a uniform standardof probability is applied to assessing the likelihood of persecution in the context of refugee protection; this corresponds to the standard of substantial probability. 

Date of decision: 01-03-2012
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 4.1,Art 9,Art 10,Art 4,Art 3,Art 11,Art 1C (5),Art 2 (c),Art 1C (6),Art 14.2,Article 3
Germany - High Administrative Court Saarland, 26 September 2011, 3 A 356/11
Country of applicant: Turkey

The standards of proof for the assessment of possible future persecution are identical for both the refugee status determination procedure and for the revocation procedure (change of legal opinion, following Federal Administrative Court, decisions of 1 June 2011,10 B 10.10 and 10 C 25.10). The question of whether a change of circumstances in a country of origin is of such a significant and non-temporary nature that the refugee’s fear of persecution can no longer be regarded as well-founded can only be answered after an individual assessment.

Date of decision: 26-09-2011
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,Art 4.4,Art 11,Art 2 (c),Art 14.2
Germany - Federal Administrative Court, 1 June 2011, 10 C 10.10
Country of applicant: Turkey

Following the decision of Abdulla et al. (C-175/08) of the European Court of Justice, revocation of refugee status presupposes that a significant and non-temporary change of circumstances has taken place. This is the case if the factors which formed the basis of the recognition of refugee status, may be regarded as having been permanently eradicated. The relevant standard of probability for the determination of the likelihood of future persecution is the same both for the recognition and the revocation of refugee status, i.e. a change in circumstances has to be assessed on the basis of whether there is still a "considerable" probability of persecution (change from former case law).

Date of decision: 01-06-2011
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,Art 7,Art 4.4,Art 11,Art 1C (5),Art 1C (6),Art 14.2