Case summaries

Regardless of the parallel extradition proceedings, the Ministry of the Interior is obliged within the proceedings to assess the consequences of prosecution of the Applicant for a criminal offence in the country of origin in the context of fulfilling the conditions for international protection. In case of fear of action by private persons, the possibility and effectiveness of protection provided by the state against such actions is to be assessed.

This was an appeal against the decision to transfer the applicant to Hungary on the ground that Hungary would transfer the applicant to Serbia, which would amount to indirect refoulement in violation of Article 3 ECHR. The Asylum Court allowed the appeal and held that, although Hungary can be assumed as a safe country, if an applicant gives individual reasons for why Hungary is not safe these must be examined in detail. 

In cases concerning countries which are not democratic and secure decision-makers must not only look to ratified international treaties as evidence of the human rights situation. It is necessary to examine carefully how international obligations and the legal system as a whole are applied in practice.

The Applicant’s fear that he will be forced to fight against persons of the same nationality as part of the compulsory military service may, regarding a particular country of origin and specific nationality, represent a well-founded fear of persecution relevant to asylum.

If an applicant raises circumstances that could present a potential breach of Art 3 ECHR it is impossible to reject the application as manifestly unfounded. The case must be considered on its merits and the deciding authority needs to have accurate COI.

This case concerned the insufficient sourcing of evidence relied upon by the decision maker in dismissing the applicant’s claim for protection. It was found to be a violation of Art 16.1 of the Asylum Procedures Directive where the decision was insufficiently sourced in the applicant’s file. Further that this violation is not remedied by making specific references to those sources before the court. 

Unlike with subsidiary protection, it is necessary for there to be a causal link between persecution and the grounds for persecution when assessing the conditions for granting asylum. The fact that a conflict between LTTE and governmental armed units affected Tamil civilians does not mean nationality qualifies as a ground of persecution. 

The judgment specifies standards for country of origin information to be used as proof in administrative and judicial proceedings. The evaluation report of the European Commission on the progress made by candidate countries is not intended for international protection proceedings, as these may only be used as supporting material together with other reports about the country of origin.

This concerned whether the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner (ORAC) were required to make an assessment of subsidiary protection, and whether ORAC were obliged to examine country of origin information in every case. The court found that ORAC were not required to make a subsidiary protection assessment. The Court held that ORAC were not obliged to examine country of origin information in every case.

A major shift is currently taking place in the rules on burden of proof as regards the granting of international protection. It is up to the Commission and the courts to cooperate in checking the conditions that enable protection to be granted and they should obtain information concerning the country of origin by official means.