Case summaries
UK - Supreme Court, 7 July 2010, HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 31
Keywords:
Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Persecution (acts of), Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Membership of a particular social group, Discrimination, Sexual orientation
Homosexuals are members of a particular social group being defined by the immutable characteristic of their sexuality.
Asylum should not be refused to a homosexual person on the basis that it could be considered reasonably tolerable, if returned to their home country, for him or her to deny their identity and conceal their sexuality in order to avoid being persecuted.
Date of decision:
07-07-2010
Relevant International and European Legislation:
EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,Art 1A (2),Art 10.1 (d),Art 33,Art 9.1 (a)
France - Council of State, 7 July 2010, Mr. A., n°315023
Country of applicant:
Haiti
Keywords:
Procedural guarantees
The time limit of 21 days to lodge a complete asylum application to the Ofpra [in the framework of the regular procedure] is sufficient.
Date of decision:
07-07-2010
Relevant International and European Legislation:
1951 Refugee Convention,EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005,Art 8.1,Art 43,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 2,Article 3
France - Council of State, 23 July 2010, Amnesty International France and others, n° 336034
Country of applicant:
Armenia, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ghana, India, Macedonia, Madagascar, Mali, Mongolia, Senegal, Tanzania, Turkey
Keywords:
Safe country of origin
Partial quashing of the list of safe countries of origin: Armenia, Madagascar, Turkey and Mali (women only) removed from the list
Date of decision:
03-07-2010
Relevant International and European Legislation:
1951 Refugee Convention,EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005,Art 23,Art 30,Art 1,Art 3
Spain - Supreme Court, 30 June 2011, 1519/2010
Country of applicant:
Colombia
Keywords:
Indiscriminate violence, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Subsidiary Protection, Political Opinion, Internal armed conflict, Individual threat, Gender Based Persecution
The applicant claimed asylum in 2006 (along with her children) alleging a well founded fear of persecution on the grounds of political opinion. The application was refused in the initial procedure and on appeal. She returned to Colombia and two years later, returned to Spain and reapplied for asylum and was again refused. She lodged an appeal before the Supreme Court and was granted subsidiary protection.
Date of decision:
30-06-2010
Relevant International and European Legislation:
EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,Art 1A (2),Art 15 (c),Art 9,Art 10.1 (e)
Finland - Helsinki Administrative Court, 29 June 2010, 10/0868/1
Country of applicant:
Iran
Keywords:
Credibility assessment, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Refugee sur place, Serious harm, Subsidiary Protection, Religion, Political Opinion
The applicant, from Iran, claimed asylum based on his political opinion and religious belief (the applicant converted from Islam to Christianity on arrival in Finland). Refugee status was refused as the applicant failed to establish that he had come to the attention of the authorities through political activities or religious practices. A residence permit was granted based on subsidiary protection. The Court relied on the applicant’s conversion to Christianity, evidence of harassment of Christians in Iran and the overall deteriorating human rights situation.
Date of decision:
29-06-2010
Relevant International and European Legislation:
EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,Art 15 (b),Art 10.1 (e),Art 5,Art 4,Art 10.1 (b)
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
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
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