Case summaries

The suppression of the expression of racist opinions in a State does not constitute persecution pursuant to the 1951 Refugee Convention, if actions of this kind are considered justified and proportionate following analysisof the particular circumstances.

It follows from the clear wording of Article 1D of the Refugee Convention that the clause contained therein on exclusion from refugee status applies only to persons who are actually making use of assistance provided by UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees in the Near East), and this must be interpreted strictly, i.e. it cannot also apply to persons who have made use of or might make use of protection or assistance. For the purposes of Article 12(1)(a), sentence one, of the Qualification Directive, according to the Court a person makes use of the protection or assistance of a UN agency other than the UNHCR when such a person is truly makes use of such protection or assistance.

This case concerned exclusion and confirmed that Art 12.2 of the Qualification Directive, should be interpreted so that the determining authority must perform an individual examination of the applicant’s case and assess the individual responsibility according to the objective and subjective criteria, as set out in the judgment of Germany v B and D.  In such cases, the burden of proof does not rest with the applicant but on the determining authority.

The Iranian applicants’ asylum claim was rejected by the authorities as they were not found credible. As a result of this finding, the authorities did not consider their account in light of the country of origin information on Iran. The court quashed the decision and granted refugee status to the family reasoning that the authorities are obliged to carry out a thorough and complete fact assessment.

It was found that the contradictions in the applicants' account were not relevant from the point of view of international protection. The court also ruled that the authority is obliged to clarify misunderstandings at hearings, at the same time applicants have to be given the opportunity to justify contradictions and incoherencies in their statements.

The Court must inquire into the circumstances which establish a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment fulfilling the requirements of subsidiary protection.

The applicant, being a young, single man and fit for work, is at no substantial individual risk, neither in his home province Parwan nor in Kabul. Therefore, it can remain undecided if the conflict in Afghanistan constitutes an internal armed conflict. 

The appellant mother (M) appealed against a Court of Appeal decision upholding a finding by an Asylum and Immigration Tribunal that her two children (aged 12 and 9), who were British citizens, could reasonably be expected to follow her when she was removed to Tanzania.

Refusal to grant social security to political refugees was in breach of the Convention.

Passive complicity in genocide includes a material element and an intentional element, as active complicity does.

This case examined the compatibility of the Dublin II Regulation with the European Convention on Human Rights regarding transfers to Greece under the Dublin II Regulation. The Court found that there was a violation of Article 3 ECHR by the Greece Government because of the applicant’s conditions of detention, violation of Article 3 ECHR by Greece concerning the applicant’s living conditions in Greece, violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3 ECHR against Greece because of the deficiencies in the asylum procedure followed in the applicant’s case and the risk of his expulsion to Afghanistan without any serious examination of the merits of his asylum application and without any access to an effective remedy. The Court also found in relation to Belgium that there was a violation of Article 3 by sending the applicant back to Greece and exposing him to risks linked to the deficiencies in the asylum procedure in that State, also held against Belgium a violation of Article 3 for sending him to Greece and exposing him to detention and living conditions there that were in breach of that ECHR article. The Court also found a violation of Article 13 ECHR taking in conjunction with Article 3 ECHR against Belgium.