Case summaries

The Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) quashed a decision of the Finnish Immigration Service which, applying the Dublin II Regulation, did not examine the application for international protection and decided to return the applicant to Greece. The SAC returned the case to the Immigration Service for a new examination based on new evidence that was presented regarding the applicant’s health.

Subsidiary protection can be granted if on return to their country of origin an applicant would face a real risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The question at issue was whether the reasons for such ill-treatment related to Refugee Convention persecution grounds or not. All international protection statuses require an individual threat, which cannot be indirect as the risk assessment is a future oriented examination of the possibility of a threat, along with the applicant’s individual circumstances and the probabilities of risk.

The Office of Immigration and Nationality (OIN) found the applicant not credible and therefore did not assess the risk of serious harm. Instead the OIN granted protection against refoulement. The Metropolitan Court ruled that the OIN was obliged to assess conditions for subsidiary protection and serious harm even if the applicant was not found credible.

The applicants, who had been recognised as refugees by UNHCR, faced risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 upon Turkey’s proposed  deportation of them to either Iran or Iraq. They had no effective opportunity to make an asylum claim or challenge their deportation. Further their detention had no legal justification and they had been unable to challenge its lawfulness. The Court found violations of Article 3, 13, 5(1), 5(2) and 5(4). 

It is in violation of Art 13 of the ECHR (Right to an Effective Remedy) in conjunction with Art 3 of the ECHR (Prohibition of Torture) that the applicant may not await the court’s decision on his request for a temporary injunction against his expulsion in the Netherlands, even though he has an arguable claim under Art 3 of the ECHR. Further that Art 39 of the Procedures Directive is not correctly implemented in Dutch law.

Internal protection has to be assessed in accordance with the Qualification Directive, and under very strict criteria. The possibility of relocating to another part of the country has to be available to the applicant and the protection has to be effective. 

In countries where there is a high prevalence of female genital mutilation (FGM), persons who have demonstrated that they oppose this practice have thus infringed the customary norms of their country of origin and therefore can be considered as having a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of membership of a particular social group in the meaning of Article 1A(2)of 1951 Refugee Convention.

Homosexuals in Tunisia, even those that do not proclaim or overtly demonstrate their sexual orientation, can be considered as constituting a specific and sufficiently identifiable whole so as to form a group whose members would face a risk of persecution for reasons of common characteristics which define them in the eyes of the Tunisian authorities and society. 

A woman having undergone female genital mutilation FGM, who benefitted from reconstructive surgery in France, an act considered as an infringement of Guinean customs despite its official ban, must be considered as a member of the social group formed by women who oppose female genital mutilation practiced in Guinea.