Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Reset
Poland - Supreme Administrative Court of Poland, 8 May 2008, OSK 237/07
Country of applicant: Russia

Gender may be a feature defining a social group, so women can be a particular social group.

Violence, beating, and bullying constitute persecution, even if these acts are committed by the local community or individual members thereof.

It is vital to determine whether the applicant obtained help from the state when she requested it or whether there was a genuine (and not just theoretical) opportunity to seek protection.

Date of decision: 08-05-2008
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 1A (2),Art 7.2,Art 10.1 (d),Art 6 (c),Art 4.3 (a),Art 9.1,Art 7.1,Para 65,Art 9.2 (a),Article 10,Article 3
ECtHR - Saadi v. United Kingdom, no. 13229/03, 29 January 2008
Country of applicant: Iraq

The seven day detention of a ‘temporarily admitted’ asylum seeker under the fast-track procedure was non-arbitrary and consistent with Article 5(1), but the 76 hour delay in providing the individual with the real reasons for his detention did not satisfy the promptness requirement of Article 5(2).

Date of decision: 29-01-2008
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 18,Art 1,Art 33,Art 7,Art 31,Article 18,Art 5.1,Art 5.2
CJEU - C‑540/03, European Parliament v Council of the European Union

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.

Date of decision: 27-06-2006
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 7,Article 21,Article 24,EN - Family Reunification Directive, Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003,Article 3,Article 4,Article 5,Article 8,Article 16,Article 17,Article 18,Article 8,UN Convention on the Rights of the Child,EN - Treaty on European Union,Article 6
UK - House of Lords, 23 March 2003, Sepet & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] UKHL 15
Country of applicant: Turkey

The 1951 Refugee Convention does not provide protection in respect of claims of conscientious objectors who feared imprisonment for their refusal to undertake military service where there is no alternative service offered in national law. This was the position even if that objection is to all forms of military service and is absolute. The right to conscientious objection was not yet protected in international human rights law and was yet to emerge as a principle of customary international law. A claim may succeed if the applicant would be required, in the course of military service, to conduct military action that breached the basic rules of human conduct or if the punishment they would receive for refusal to serve was discriminatory or disproportionate. Secondly, when assessing whether persecution was “for” a Convention reason the decision-maker should ask the question of “what was the real reason for the persecution?”. The decision-maker should not limit the enquiry to the persecutor’s motivation but should look for the effective reason or reasons.

Date of decision: 23-03-2003
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,Art 9,Art 10,Art 1,UNHCR Handbook,Para 168,Para 167,Para 169,Para 170,Para 171,Para 172,Para 173,Para 174,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 10,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 4,Article 9,Article 14