Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Reset
Germany - Administrative Court Stuttgart, 8 September 2008, A 10 K 13/07
Country of applicant: Lebanon

A Lebanese woman was recognised as a refugee after a death threat by her brother because of her way of life. The court found:

  1. State protection doesn’t exist against ‘honour killings’ in Lebanon.
  2. Women who do not accept discrimination and denial of rights, which are based on tradition and social circumstances in their home country, constitute a particular social group in terms of Art. 10 (2) (d) of the Qualification Directive.
  3. Even a single person can be a non-state actor under Section 60 (1) sentence (4) (c) of the Residence Act (identical to Art 6 (c) of the Qualification Directive).
Date of decision: 08-09-2008
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,Art 7.2,Art 8,Art 10.1 (d),Art 4.3 (c),Art 6 (c),Art 4.3 (b),Art 7.1 (a),Art 5.1
Germany - Administrative Court Neustadt a.d.W., 8 September 2008, 3 K 753/07.NW
Country of applicant: Iran

The applicant, a lesbian from Iran, was recognised as a refugee. The court found:

  1. It is unreasonable for homosexuals to refrain from sexual activities in order to avoid persecution.
  2. Although there is no systematic persecution of homosexuals in Iran, there is a considerable risk of detection and persecution.

Date of decision: 08-09-2008
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,Art 8,Art 7,Art 9,Art 10.1 (d),Art 10,Art 6,Art 4.4,Art 4.3 (c),Art 4.3 (a),Art 13,Art 9.1,Art 9.2 (c),EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 8
Ireland - High Court, 27 June 2008, A.B.O. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2008] IEHC 191
Country of applicant: Nigeria

This case concerned the test to be applied by the Minister as the decision-maker in applications for subsidiary protection. The Court held that it was permissible for the Minister to have regard to the reports and findings of other decision-makers in the asylum process (specifically the Refugee Appeals Tribunal). However, a particularly careful and thorough analysis will be required if the case for subsidiary protection is put on an entirely new basis which has never been considered at any stage of the process. In relation to state protection, the Court reiterated that the onus lies on an applicant to provide clear and convincing proof of a state’s inability to protect its citizens.

Date of decision: 27-06-2008
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,Art 4.1,Art 4.2,Art 4.3,Art 4.3 (e),Art 4,Art 4.3 (c),Art 4.3 (a),Art 4.3 (b),Art 4.3 (d)
Germany - High Administrative Court Baden-Württemberg, 25 October 2006, A 3 S 46/06
Country of applicant: Russia, Russia (Chechnya)

Members of a family, who are Russian citizens of Chechen ethnicity, who originate from Chechnya, can avail of internal protection (in the context of persecution by non-state actors, Section 60 (1) sentence (4) (c) of the Residence Act in conjunction with Art 8 of the Qualification Directive) in areas outside Chechnya, if one family member (in this instance the wife) possesses a new Russian internal passport, which is an important requirement for registration.

Date of decision: 25-10-2006
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,Art 15 (c),Art 4.4,Art 4.3 (c),Art 8.1,Art 8.2,Art 38