Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Reset
France – Court of Cassation, N° 2923, 12 December 2018
Country of applicant: France

According to the new 10 September 2018 French Law on Controlled Migration, there will be no criminal proceedings against individuals who have helped in the movement and illegal residence of undocumented migrants, when the aid consisted in providing legal, linguistic or social advice or assistance, or any other aid provided for an exclusively humanitarian purpose.

Criminal immunity is thus defined in a much less restrictive manner, and shall apply to acts committed before the entry into force of the new law.

 

Date of decision: 12-12-2018
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 6,Article 7
ECtHR Thuo v. Cyprus (no. 3869/07)
Country of applicant: Kenya

Lack of prompt investigation of ill-treatment complaints may amount to a procedural violation of Article 3 ECHR. Detention conditions should follow certain standards and individuals should be kept in suitable establishments with enough allocated space.

Date of decision: 04-04-2017
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 15,Article 16,Article 3,Article 5,Article 6,Article 7,Article 12,Article 13,Article 14,Article 17,Article 18,Article 35,Article 8,Article 9,Article 10
Germany - VG Trier, 7 October 2016, 1 K 5093/16.TR
Country of applicant: Syria

When deciding whether refugee status should be available , one must not only consider any pre-persecution but also post-flight circumstances. Judged  on a forward looking basis of persecution of political enemies within Syrian territory, upon return to Syria there continues to be a danger of individual persecution including human rights violations by reason of belonging to a certain group. 

Date of decision: 07-10-2016
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,Art 2,Art 35,European Union Law,International Law,Council of Europe Instruments,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 2,Article 3,Article 7,Article 15,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011,Article 5
Poland - Regional Administrative Court in Warsaw, 4 December 2012, V SA/Wa 931/12
Country of applicant: Georgia

Acts of a criminal nature cannot be equated with persecution within the meaning of grounds cited under the Convention. Public authorities in the country of origin, which the family of the foreignor did not contact, are supposed to provide protection against risks posed by individual citizens.

Date of decision: 04-12-2012
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 2,Art 9,Art 10,Art 23,Art 1A,Article 2,Article 3,Article 4,Article 5,Article 6,Article 7,Article 8
Poland - Regional Administrative Court in Warsaw, 1 October 2012, V SA/Wa 873/12
Country of applicant: Uganda

The Convention relating to the Status of Refugees contains a finite list of grounds on which refugee status may be recognised and does not include victims of war, natural disasters, or famine, family situation, unemployment, lack of educational opportunities, or poverty.

The assessment of whether the foreignor's fear of persecution is justified must therefore be performed with reference to the individual case in question and in the light of the general social, legal, political, and economic situation of the country of origin of the foreignor applying for refugee status.

Date of decision: 01-10-2012
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 2,Art 15,Art 10,Art 4,Art 23,Art 1A,Article 2,Article 3,Article 4,Article 5,Article 6,Article 7
Poland - Regional Administrative Court in Warsaw, 8 August 2012, V SA/Wa 621/12
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

The notion of “well-founded fear” has not been precisely defined. However, it is commonly accepted that it must necessarily contain two elements: a subjective element (the party has a real and credible fear of persecution) and an objective element (this fear has a basis in reality).  A person applying for refugee status should present facts and possibly evidence confirming that they were persecuted in the past or that they fear persecution upon returning to their country of origin. Other reasons for a foreigner leaving their country of origin or fearing a return to their country of origin are immaterial as regards recognition of their refugee status.

Date of decision: 08-08-2012
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 2,Art 4,Art 6,Art 23,Art 1A,Article 2,Article 3,Article 4,Article 5,Article 6,Article 7,Article 8,UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
Poland - Regional Administrative Court in Warsaw, 28 June 2012, V SA/Wa 2460/11
Country of applicant: Russia

B.G., a citizen of the Russian Federation, applied for refugee status, citing persecution experienced due to his brother being in prison. The authorities of both instances questioned his credibility, citing numerous inconsistencies in the various testimonies given. The foreignor then appealed to the Regional Administrative Court, which dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the proceedings had been conducted properly and referring to the fact that the foreignor was able to flee internally in his country of origin.

The authority conducting the proceedings provides, where necessary, translations into Polish of documents in a foreign language that are admissible as evidence in refugee status proceedings.

The option of internal flight means that if there is a part of the country of origin where there are no circumstances justifying the foreignor's fear of persecution or serious harm and it can reasonably be presumed that the foreignor will be able to move there without impediment, there is no well-founded fear of persecution or actual risk of serious harm in the country of origin. If the conditions in one region do not suit the foreignor, he can try to move to another part of the country.

Date of decision: 28-06-2012
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 8,Art 2,Art 4,Art 23,Article 2,Article 3,Article 4,Article 5,Article 6,Article 7,Article 8
Germany - Federal Administrative Court, 5 March 2009, 10 C 51.07
Country of applicant: China

This case concerned the assessment of religious persecution. The court found that:

  1. Even under the Qualification Directive not every restriction of religious freedom results in persecution within the meaning of asylum law. Whether a measure is tied to religion as a reason for persecution is found within Art 10 of the Qualification Directive; but what right is protected, and to what extent, proceeds from Art 9 of the Qualification Directive.
  2. Interference in a core area of religious freedom represents a severe violation of a basic human right within the meaning of Art 9.1 of the Qualification Directive. Whether, and under what conditions, religious activity in public is also included, is a matter of uncertainty under Community law that must ultimately be clarified by the European Court of Justice.
Date of decision: 05-03-2009
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,Art 1A (2),Art 10.1 (b),Art 4.4,Art 4.3 (d),Art 5.2,Art 9.1 (a),EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 10,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 2,Article 3,Article 4,Article 7,Article 9,Article 15
Germany - Administrative Court Köln, 12 October 2007, 18 K 6334/05.A
Country of applicant: Iraq

Currently every Sunnite and Shiite from Central and South Iraq is to be considered as a refugee within the meaning of Section 60 (1) Residence Act and the 1951 Refugee Convention, if he/she originates from a region with mixed denominations.

Returnees who originate from regions of mixed denominations cannot obtain internal protection in any part of Iraq.

Date of decision: 12-10-2007
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,Art 8,Art 4.3,Art 7,Art 9,Art 10.1 (d),Art 10,Art 4,Art 6,Art 4.4,Art 1A,UNHCR Handbook,Para 38,Para 37,Para 41,Para 42,Para 39,Para 40,Art 2 (c),Para 44,Para 43,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 3,Article 4,Article 5,Article 7,Article 8,Article 9,Article 11,Article 12,Article 15
ECtHR - Öcalan v Turkey, Application no. 46221/99, 12 March 2003
Country of applicant: Turkey

The applicant was the leader of the PKK and the most wanted person in Turkey. He was arrested and sentenced to the death penalty. Breaches of Articles 3, 5 and 6 were found with regard to his detention, the imposition of the death penalty and his rights as the defence to a fair trial.

Date of decision: 12-03-2003
Relevant International and European Legislation: ECHR (Sixth Protocol),ECHR (Thirteenth Protocol),Council of Europe Instruments,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 1,Article 2,Article 3,Article 5,Article 6,Article 7,Article 8,Article 9,Article 10,Article 13,Article 14,Article 18,Article 27,Article 30,Article 34