Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Reset
Belgium - Council for Alien Law Litigation, 24 June 2010, Nr. 45.397
Country of applicant: Iraq
Keywords: First country of asylum, Safe third country
In a general assembly decision, the CALL held that the concepts of “safe third country” and “first country of asylum” have no ground in Belgian law and that Art 26 and 27 of the Procedures Directive have no direct effect. Further, that the well-founded fear of the applicant should be assessed against the country of nationality (or, for stateless persons, the country of their former habitual residence). 
Date of decision: 24-06-2010
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 2,Art 2 (k),Art 26,Art 27
Belgium - Council for Alien Law Litigation, 24 June 2010, Nr. 45.396
Country of applicant: Kosovo
Keywords: Burden of proof, Country of former habitual residence, Stateless person, Nationality
Referring to Belgian law and the provisions of the Qualification Directive, the Council for Alien Law Litigation (CALL) held in a General Assembly decision that the need for protection should be assessed against the country of nationality or against the country of former habitual residence (where the applicant is a stateless person or their nationality is unclear).
Date of decision: 24-06-2010
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,Art 2 (e),Art 2,Art 2 (k),UNHCR Handbook,Para 87,Para 89
Belgium – Council for Alien Law Litigation, 24 June 2010, Nr. 45.395
Country of applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Burden of proof, Credibility assessment, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Personal circumstances of applicant, Nationality, Political Opinion, Gender Based Persecution, Female genital mutilation
The Council for Alien Law Litigation (CALL) held in a general assembly decision that the applicant’s opposition to the Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) of her daughter should be taken as the expression of a political opinion. Further, that when assessing the nationality of the applicant it is important to take into account their specific profile.
Date of decision: 24-06-2010
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,Art 4
Czech Republic – Supreme Administrative Court, 23 June 2010, A.B. v. Ministry of Interior, 4 Azs 16/2010-47
Country of applicant: Algeria
Keywords: Non-refoulement, Serious harm, Subsequent application, Subsidiary Protection, Inadmissible application

Even if the conditions for considering a subsequent application as inadmissible are fulfilled, the Ministry of Interior is still obliged to consider whether the applicant is in danger of serious harm upon return to his or her country of origin.

Date of decision: 23-06-2010
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 15,Art 25.2 (f),Art 32.3,Art 32.1,Art 32.4
Belgium – Council for Alien Law Litigation, 18 June 2010, Nr. 45.095, 45.096, 45.098
Country of applicant: Bosnia and Herzegovina
Keywords: Best interest of the child, Country of origin, Family unity (right to), Nationality
This case concerned the status of family members. The CALL held that Art 23 of the Qualification Directive, which has no direct effect, does not create a right for the family member of a beneficiary of refugee or subsidiary protection status to benefit from the same status, and reminds Member States of the necessity to take into account the personal legal status of the family member (e.g. different nationality). Where a child has parents with two different types of status and the nationality of the child cannot be established, then the child should be given the status that is most beneficial to him/her.
Date of decision: 18-06-2010
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,Art 23
Finland - Supreme Administrative Court, 18 June 2010, 2776/1/09
Country of applicant: Russia
Keywords: Internal protection, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Personal interview, Procedural guarantees, Political Opinion

The decision of the Administrative Court to refuse the applicant an oral hearing was overturned. The SAC held the Administrative Court did not show the Qualification Directive (which was implemented during the proceedings) had been applied and that the Administrative Court failed to take into consideration that as an asylum seeker the applicant had limited possibilities of supporting his claim by submitting written evidence only.

Date of decision: 18-06-2010
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,Art 4.4,Art 10.2
UK - Court of Appeal, 18 June 2010, FA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 696
Country of applicant: Iraq
Keywords: Procedural guarantees, Subsidiary Protection, Unaccompanied minor

In UK domestic law, if a person has made a claim for asylum but his claim has been rejected by the Secretary of State, but he has been given leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for over a year, the person can appeal to the Tribunal on the grounds that he or she is a refugee in order to ‘upgrade’ his or her status. The Court held that the general principle of equivalence in EU Law requires that the appeal right against the rejection of the claim cannot be restricted to the grounds that the applicant is a refugee but must also allow the applicant to appeal on the grounds that he is entitled to subsidiary protection.

Date of decision: 18-06-2010
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,Art 2,Art 18,Art 24,Art 15,Recital 6,Recital 24,Art 2 (g),Art 26,Art 28,Art 29,Art 25,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 2,Article 3,Article 8
CJEU - C-31/09 Nawras Bolbol v Hungary
Country of applicant: Palestinian Territory
Keywords: Exclusion from protection, Stateless person, Refugee Status

For the purposes of the first sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2004/83, a person receives protection or assistance from an agency of the United Nations other than UNHCR when that person has actually availed himself of that protection or assistance.

Article 1D of the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, to which Article 12(1)(a) of the Directive refers, merely excludes from the scope of that Convention those persons who are at present receiving protection or assistance from an organ or agency of the United Nations other than UNHCR. It follows from the clear wording of Article 1D of the Geneva Convention that only those persons who have actually availed themselves of the assistance provided by UNRWA come within the clause excluding refugee status set out therein, which must, as such, be construed narrowly and cannot therefore also cover persons who are or have been eligible to receive protection or assistance from that agency.

Date of decision: 17-06-2010
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 1A (2),Art 2 (e),Art 18,Art 12,Recital 6,Recital 2,Recital 3,Recital 10,Recital 17,Art 13,Art 21,Recital 16,Art 1D,Art 2 (c),EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Art 2 (d)
France - Council of State, 16 June 2010, Ms. A., n°340250
Keywords: Accelerated procedure, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Safe country of origin, Reception conditions

French legislative provisions concerning the non suspensive effect of the judicial remedy under the accelerated procedure are not manifestly incompatible with the Asylum Procedures Directive and the Reception Conditions Directives.  

Date of decision: 16-06-2010
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005,Art 39,Art 23.4,Art 7,Art 31,EN - Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003,Article 13,Article 14
France - Council of State, 14 June 2010, M. A., n°320630
Country of applicant: Rwanda
Keywords: Exclusion from protection, Family unity (right to), Genocide

Serious reasons have to be established in order to apply the exclusion clause in Article 1F(a) of the 1951 Refugee Convention, i.e. the material and intentional elements specific to the complicity.

Date of decision: 14-06-2010
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,Art 4.3,Art 12.2,Art 12.3,Art 1F(a)