Case summaries

The case concerned the issue of whether ‘family’ constitutes a particular social group. The applicant was recognised as a refugee on the basis of her well founded fear of persecution as a member of her husband’s family.

The sexual orientation of the Applicant for asylum may, depending on circumstances and with regard to the situation in the country of origin, be considered a sign of his membership of a particular social group. The threat of injury to the Applicant for asylum as a result of actions causing psychological pressure may not be as serious as injuries that result in threats to life or freedom, but must be at least of a comparable type.

The UNHCR Handbook is an important source of law concerning the procedure to determine protection needs. The Migration Court is responsible for ensuring that a case is sufficiently investigated by holding an oral hearing or otherwise investigating the ambiguities of the case, when an asylum seeker who has been rejected because of credibility grounds has submitted relevant documents that are deemed to be genuine by a Swedish embassy.

This case concerned the application of Art 10.1 (d) of the Qualification Directive, as applied to lesbians from Iran. It was found that the "particular social group", described as homosexual (lesbian) women, has a distinct identity in Iran, because they are perceived as being different by the surrounding society (Art. 10.1 (d) (1) of the Qualification Directive).

Further, that there is a high likelihood that a homosexual relationship between women would be persecuted when detected, because it constitutes a breach of a cultural norm, even worse than among homosexual (gay) men.

The European Parliament sought the annulment of Article 4(1), Article 4(6) and Article 8 of the Family Reunification Directive, as being incompatible with the right to respect for family life and non-discrimination based on age.

The Court found that these provisions created a limited margin of appreciation for Member States which was no greater than that allowed for in ECtHR case law, and could be exercised compatibly with fundamental rights.

The provisions regarding the establishment and operation of Refugee Centres do not constitute a basis for ordering foreigners to stay in the said Centres, under penalty of having the asylum application procedure halted, on the sole ground that the police authorities consider their applications for asylum to be manifestly unfounded. The Refugee Centres were not established as centres where foreigners would be obliged to live – under penalty of halting the process of examining their applications for leave to remain – until the process had been completed, if those foreigners wish to and are able to stay elsewhere during the procedure, unless the Administration states that the measure is necessary for a specific and fully justified reason of public interest.

Persecution by non-State actors according to Section 60 (1) sentence 4 (c) of the Residence Act (similar to Art 6 (c) of the Qualification Directive) is not established if the group of actors is small and only consists of a limited number of private persons. In this case, the "dangerousness" of the persecution is not comparable to those cases where the persecution stems from the State or State-like actors according to Section 60 (1) sentence 4 (a) and (b) of the Residence Act (similar to Art. 6 (a) and (b) of the Qualification Directive) .

A family or an extended group of relatives do not constitute a "social group" in the context of refugee protection. A family is not clearly perceived as a definable group with its own "group" identity. Such a clear definition of a family or clan could only be established if membership of the family was considered of high importance and the family or clan had a distinct identity.

Membership of a political party is not required to establish persecution for reasons of political opinion.

Within the meaning of the provisions of Article 2(1) and Article 3 para. 1, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of Presidential Decree 61/1999, for an appeal brought against an initial negative decision to be rejected for being out of time, there is no requirement for there to have been a prior judgment by the Committee formed under Article 3(5) which – as is clear from the regulations concerning its composition and operation – is responsible for considering the substantive conditions for recognising refugee status to a foreigner.