Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Reset
Italy - Tribunal of Trapani - Office of the Judge for Preliminary Investigations (Piero Grillo)
Country of applicant: Ghana, Sudan

The Court recognised self-defence in a case where migrants were charged with assault against a police officer following their rescue at sea and their impending return to Libya. Their well-founded fear of return to Libya provided the basis for their defence of duress. 

Date of decision: 23-05-2019
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,Article 4,Article 18,Article 19,Article 3,UN Convention against Torture,Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010/C 83/01
Belgium – X. v. Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons, No. 220.190, 24th April 2019
Country of applicant: Morocco

LGBT individuals who have left Morocco can be granted refugee status as the socially and legally hostile environment towards LGBT individuals in this country can justify fear of persecution based on their membership to a particular group. A cautious assessment of the consequences of a return to the country of origin and an extensive benefit of the doubt are advised in the review of asylum applications of Moroccan nationals identifying as LGBT.

Date of decision: 24-04-2019
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 1A (2),Article 10
WA (Pakistan) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department, 2019
Country of applicant: Pakistan
This case dealt with the issue of the whether the guidance of MN and others Pakistan CG [2012] was still accurate in terms of asylum protection due to failing to ask the question of why an individual would act in a discreet way in their country of origin. This question draws the distinction between concealment of faith due to fear of persecution or simply due to social norms or personal preference.
 
WA sought to challenge the correctness of the guidance in MN and others Pakistan CG [2012] in that it failed to properly reflect the judgement of HJ (Iran) test of asking why an individual would act in a particular way to avoid persecutory harm in their country of origin. The unanimous judgement allowed the appeal and remitted the case back for a hearing. 
 
Date of decision: 06-03-2019
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011
Greece - District Court of Mytilene 136/2018, 31 December 2018,
Country of applicant: Bangladesh

The recognition of gender identity is a matter of respect towards the individual’s personality, protected under Greek and international law and applicable by analogy to refugees. Refugees must be able to request assistance from the authorities of the host-country, as refugeehood entails severed ties with the country of origin making it impossible for recognised refugees to request official actions from their governments.

 

Date of decision: 31-12-2018
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 25.1
Austria: Constitutional Court, 12. December 2018, E 1277/2018-13
Country of applicant: Iran

The principle of equality is violated if the amount of minimum benefits is calculated according to the duration of residence in Austria within the last six years. Persons entitled to asylum cannot be treated in the same way as persons who can return to their country of origin at any time

Date of decision: 12-12-2018
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 29,Article 29
ECtHR - M.A. and Others v. Lithuania (no. 59793/17), 11 December 2018
Country of applicant: Russia

The ECtHR ruled that failure to allow a Russian family with five children to submit asylum applications on the Lithuanian border and their removal to Belarus amounted to a violation of Article 3 ECHR. 

Date of decision: 11-12-2018
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005,Recital 6,Art 1,Art 33,Art 31,European Union Law,International Law,Recital 8,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 18,Article 19,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011,Article 2,Article 15,Article 21
CJEU - Case C‑713/17, Ayubi, 21 November 2018
Country of applicant: Unknown

Persons entitled to refugee protection should be accorded the same treatment regarding assistance as provided to nationals of the Member State. Article 29 Directive 2011/95 and Article 23 Geneva Convention do not make this treatment dependant on the length of the applicant’s stay in the Member State. 

A refugee may rely on the incompatibility of legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, with Article 29(1) of Directive 2011/95 before the national courts in order to remove the restriction on his rights provided for by that legislation.

Date of decision: 21-11-2018
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 23,Article 2,Article 24,Article 29
France - Administrative tribunal of Toulouse, 9 November 2018, N° 1805185
Country of applicant: Nigeria

As a result of a transfer order to Italian authorities joined with house arrest, the applicant lodged an appeal. She argued she would be at risk of being exposed to inhuman and degrading treatments, as well as to systemic lapses of the Italian asylum system. In this case, the administrative tribunal granted annulment of those orders issued by the prefect of la Haute-Garonne in the light of the current Italian asylum conditions and the reasons motivating the applicant to reach France after having stayed in Italy. 

Date of decision: 09-11-2018
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,European Union Law,International Law,Council of Europe Instruments,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 47,EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,Article 4,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 3,EN - Dublin III Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No. 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 (recast Dublin II Regulation),Article 3,Article 4,Article 5,Article 17,Article 20,Article 26,Article 27,Article 35,Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010/C 83/01
CJEU – Case C-56/17 (Fathi), 4 October 2018
Country of applicant: Iran

A Member State is not required to issue a decision on its own responsibility under Dublin III when, in its capacity as the determining Member State, it found that there is no sufficient evidence to establish responsibility of another Member State. Domestic courts do not have to examine the application of the Dublin criteria ex proprio motu in the context of a review of the rejection of an application for international protection.

Religion is a broad concept that encompasses both internal elements of faith and an external component of manifestation. The applicant does not have to provide documentation and make statements on both elements but has to cooperate with the authorities and substantiate the reasons that his claim of persecution on the grounds of religion is true. The provision of the death penalty in national legislation could constitute an “act of persecution” on its own, provided that the penalty is actually enforced and regardless of whether the measure is considered important for reasons of public order in that country of origin.

Date of decision: 04-10-2018
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 1A (2),Recital (12),Recital (53),Recital (54),Article 2,Article 31,Article 32,Article 46,Article 15,Article 3,Article 9,Article 10
France – Council of State, 3 October 2018, N° 406222
Country of applicant: Congo (Republic of)

The French National Court on Asylum has made an error of law by refusing to grant at the very least subsidiary protection to the applicant following his new request to re-examine his situation, despite a condemnation from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) for the violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). 

Date of decision: 03-10-2018
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,Article 1,Article 3,Article 41,Article 46