Case summaries
The Council of State ruled that non-governmental organisations who, by way of their statutory objects and their actions, can prove a sufficient interest in relation to the subject-matter of the proceedings, can make an application before the CNDA on the terms set out by the Council of State.
In this case, the Council of State held that the CNDA had made an error of law in ruling that Nigerian women who were victims of human trafficking networks and who had actively sought to escape the network constituted a social group within the meaning of the 1951 Refugee Convention.
The issue in this case was “complicity” – the Court analysed the facts of the applicant’s involvement in a violent paramilitary force in Iran to determine whether he was complicit in crimes against humanity, so as to be excluded from international protection.
It must be noted that the Applicant’s occupation as a pharmacist meant that according to the country of origin information, he could be a target group for the country`s security forces if they suspected that assistance was being provided to the insurgents. This was considered to constitute the Applicant`s imputed political opinion to be taken into consideration in light of the right to asylum, in other words, circumstances to be considered pursuant to the Geneva Convention.
This case related to a dispute as to whether the UK or Belgium had responsibility for determining the applicant’s asylum claim
The Applicant challenged the first instance decision and was granted refugee status on the basis of a fear of persecution on grounds of his imputed political opinion, which was not identified by the asylum authority (OIN). The asylum authority considered Kabul as an alternative for internal protection, which was rejected by the Court since the Applicant had no family ties and employment in Kabul, which is getting overpopulated and residents are threatened by terrorist attacks.
In 8 joined cases, the Applicants’ deportation to Iraq would not violate Articles 2 or 3 due to the possibility of their internal relocation away from their former homes to other regions of Iraq.
The Court stated that the applicant’s fear of persecution and serious threat, related to assaults by her former spouse are unfounded because the Court believes that the applicant has a reasonable possibility of internal asylum in another part of her country of origin. Consequently, the Court rejected the applicant’s appeal against the Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) decision refusing the grant of international protection).
Applications for leave to remain were rejected as the Applicant had already been granted refugee status in another EU state. No grounds supporting an examination of the asylum applications in Sweden emerged in the case.
Instead of non-refoulement, the Court granted the Applicant subsidiary protection status because he would be at risk of serious harm upon returning to his home country (torture, cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment).
This case concerns the interpretation of Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 when an unaccompanied child submits more than one asylum application in two Member States and does not have any family members present in the territories of the Member States. In such circumstances the CJEU held that the responsible Member State is the one in which the child is present after having lodged an asylum application there.