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
Sweden - Migration Court of Appeal, 18 September 2013, UM 795-12, MIG 2013:16

An adult man was granted refugee status with reference to his familial relationship with his mother.

Date of decision: 18-09-2013
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 23,Art 3,Recital 27,UNHCR Handbook,Para 184,Para 185,Art 2 (h),Article 8,Para 181,Para 183,Para 182,Para 186,Para 187,Para 188
UK - High Court, Hashemi, R (on the application of) v The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) & Anor, [2013] EWHC 2316 (Admin)
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

This case concerns a child asylum applicant who had his appeal against refusal of asylum considered after he had turned 18, and thus had become an adult. He complained that this breached Article 39 of the Procedures Directive (effective remedy).

Date of decision: 31-07-2013
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 23.2,Art 4,Recital 1,Art 39,Art 13,Art 23,Recital 27,Art 17,Art 23.1,Art 23.2,Art 39,Recital 13,Recital 8,Recital 14,Art 39.1 (a),Art 39.1 (e),3.,UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
Poland - Supreme Administrative Court in Warsaw, 12 March 2013, II OSK 126/07
Country of applicant: Russia

This was a judgment on the cassation appeal against the judgment of the Regional Administrative Court in Warsaw of 13 September 2006 (case ref. V SA/Wa 82/06) on dismissal of the appeal against the decision of the Polish Refugee Board on refusal to accord refugee status and grant a permit for tolerated stay.

Members of a refugee’s family may constitute a particular social group within the meaning of Article 1A(2) of the Geneva Convention, and the fact of being related to a refugee may also give rise to a risk of persecution that justifies according refugee status to a foreigner.

Date of decision: 12-03-2013
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 1A (2),Recital 27
UK - Upper Tribunal, 11 November 2010, AW (sufficiency of protection) Pakistan [2011] UKUT 31(IAC)
Country of applicant: Pakistan

In assessing state protection, a judge must look, notwithstanding a general sufficiency of protection in a country, to the individual circumstances of the applicant. In assessing whether an appellant’s individual circumstances give rise to a need for additional protection, account must be taken of past persecution (if any) so as to ensure the question posed is whether there are good reasons to consider that such persecution (and past lack of sufficient protection) will not be repeated. When considering whether past persecution is a serious indication of a well founded fear under Article 4(4) of the Qualification Directive, Recital 27 to the Directive indicated that the past ill treatment of family members was also relevant.

Date of decision: 11-11-2010
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,Art 7,Art 4,Recital 27,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 3