Case summaries
The case concerned a subsequent application for international protection based on the right to a family and private life (Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)) The application was rejected as inadmissible by the Ministry of Interior (MOI) on the basis that Art 8 considerations were deemed not applicable in asylum cases. However, the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) made two important findings. Firstly it held that even if an application was considered to be inadmissible, there was an obligation to evaluate the risk of refoulement under Art 33 of 1951 Refugee Convention. Secondly, as provided by § 14(a)(2)(d) of the Asylum Act, in exceptional cases, to grant international protection for family life reasons, these have to be accepted as new elements in subsequent proceedings.
The applicants, a family of four from Iran, were deported back to Iran from Turkey after having been granted refugee status by the UNHCR. The applicants challenged the lawfulness of their detention, claimed that they were not offered an effective remedy prior to their deportation and that they were at risk of persecution upon their return to Iran.
The Applicant, S.H., is a Bhutanese national of ethnic Nepalese origin who currently lives in Huddersfield. He claimed asylum in the UK, but the application was refused and he was served with removal directions. Prior to his removal, the Court indicated to the United Kingdom Government that he should not be expelled. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the Applicant complained that his removal to Bhutan would expose him to a risk of ill-treatment on account of his ethnicity, his status as a failed asylum seeker, and as the close relative of a human rights activist who has been granted asylum in the United Kingdom.
Where the situation described in Art 15(c) of the Qualification Directive does not occur in all parts of the country of origin, it must be assessed in respect of the distinct area of the country from which the applicant originates.
Although gender based persecution is not expressly mentioned among the reasons for recognising refugee status, the UNHCR Guidelines on claims to refugee status in cases involving gender based persecution, as cited by the Applicant, indicate that gender based persecution falls within the broader category of persecution for reasons of membership of a particular social group.
Although physical persons acting on their own behalf do not constitute typical perpetrators of persecution, they may be regarded as actors of persecution within the meaning of the Convention in cases where public authorities are unable or unwilling to protect an individual against their activities.
The conditions for applying an exclusion clause can be fulfilled without considering if there are grounds for granting protection.
The right to family life can outweigh the ‘state responsibility’ criteria in the Dublin II Regulation. The Court held that the application for asylum should be processed in Sweden, in order to secure the right to family and private life (Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights), despite the fact that another State was responsible under the Dublin II Regulation.
Expulsion by France of two nationals of Belarus whose asylum claims had been rejected would amount to a violation of Article 3.
The applicant and her husband were both Ethiopian nationals who had their asylum applications in Switzerland definitively rejected, but were unable to return. The Swiss authorities refused the applicant’s requests to be transferred to her husband’s canton, leading to approximately 5 years separation.
The Court found a violation of their Article 8 right to respect for family life, as the measure had not been necessary in a democratic society.
The applicant and her husband were both Ethiopian nationals who had their asylum applications in Switzerland definitively rejected, but were unable to return. The Swiss authorities refused the applicant’s requests to be transferred to her husband’s canton, leading to approximately 5 years separation.
The Court found a violation of their Article 8 right to respect for family life, as the measure had not been necessary in a democratic society.