Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Reset
Portugal - Administrative Litigation Section of the Central Administrative Court, 11/02/2016, proc. nº 12873/16
Country of applicant: Syria

It is an appeal against the decision handed down by the Administrative Court of Lisboa that granted asylum to a Syrian citizen.

The recursive claim was declared unfounded by the Central Court, inter alia because the applicant’s mere transit from Brazil could not be considered as a connecting link that could render Brazil a safe third country.

Date of decision: 11-02-2016
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005,Para 203,Para 204,Para 196,EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,EN - Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011,EN - Recast Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2013/33/EU of 26 June 2013
Germany – Administrative Court Magdeburg Chamber 8, 26 January 2016, 8A 108/ 16
Keywords: Detention, Humanitarian considerations, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Responsibility for examining application

Due to systemic deficiencies in the Maltese asylum system, a responsibility on the part of the German authorities to examine the asylum application exists by virtue of the sovereignty clause in the Dublin III Regulation.

Date of decision: 26-01-2016
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005,European Union Law,Council of Europe Instruments,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 4,Article 52,EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,Art 52.3,EN - Dublin II Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003,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),EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011
ECtHR - M. D. and M. A. v Belgium, Application No. 58689/12, 19 January 2016
Country of applicant: Russia
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Actor of persecution or serious harm, Burden of proof, Credibility assessment, Detention, Duty of applicant, Effective remedy (right to), Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Persecution (acts of), Relevant Facts, Relevant Documentation, Standard of proof, Subsequent application, Well-founded fear, Refugee Status, Real risk, Individual threat

The Court found a violation of Article 3 in relation to a subsequent application for asylum, which had been rejected on the basis that it contained no new elements indicating that the Applicants ran a real risk of being subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment on deportation to Russia. Because new information had in fact been provided, the national authorities were under an obligation to thoroughly review the information in order to assure themselves that the Applicants’ rights under Article 3 would be safeguarded.

Date of decision: 19-01-2016
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005,Art 32,EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,Article 40,EN - Dublin II Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003,Article 3,Article 13,Article 39,Article 41,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011
France - National Court of Asylum, 7 January 2016, Mrs S spouse of M and Mr M v Director General of OFPRA
Country of applicant: Kosovo
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Personal interview, Procedural guarantees, Relevant Facts, Relevant Documentation, Subsequent application

A subsequent application is not admissible unless the interested party presents new facts or elements relating to his personnel situation or to the situation in his country of origin, out of which he could not have had knowledge of previously, and likely, if they have probative value, to modify the appreciation of the legitimacy or the credibility of the application of the interested party.

The director general of OFPRA was right to find that the elements that the applicants presented before him did not significantly increase the probability that they would meet the qualifying conditions to claim protection and that their subsequent applications were inadmissible, without having undertaken a hearing before making the decision on inadmissibility.

Date of decision: 07-01-2016
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,European Union Law,International Law,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 18,EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,Article 33,Article 40,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011,Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010/C 83/01,Article 78
UK - Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), 5 January 2016, OO v The Secretary Of State For The Home Department
Country of applicant: Algeria

The presence of laws criminalising homosexuality does not amount to persecution within the meaning of article 9, Directive 2011/95/EU when there is no real risk for gay men to be prosecuted on the basis of these laws. A gay man in Algeria may reasonably be expected to relocate within the country in order to avoid persecution from his family members, and to conceal his sexual identity so as to conform to societal pressures falling short of acts of persecution.

Date of decision: 05-01-2016
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,Art 1A (2),Art 1A,European Union Law,International Law,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011,Article 9
France - National Court of Asylum (Cour Nationale du Droit d’Asile), 29 October 2015, Mr. H., N°15006472
Country of applicant: Bangladesh
Keywords: Personal interview, Relevant Facts, Serious harm, Country of origin, Membership of a particular social group, Gender Based Persecution, Sexual orientation

A person, with a well-founded fear, within the meaning of the Geneva Convention, of being harmed by their family if they return to their country of origin because they are a member of a particular social group and are unable to rely on effective protection from the state, may be entitled to claim refugee status.  

Date of decision: 29-10-2015
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,Art 1A (2),European Union Law,International Law,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 1,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011,Article 9,Article 10
Slovenia - Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, 15 October 2015, judgment U-I-U-I-189/14, Up-663/14
Country of applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Circumstances ceased to exist, Effective remedy (right to), Non-refoulement, Relevant Facts, Subsidiary Protection

Termination of an applicant’s international protection status (ie where there is a change or termination of protection grounds) must be examined against the principle of non-refoulement, which ensures the right to a fair and efficient procedure in which the Asylum authority assesses if non-refoulement would be violated where protection ceases.

It results from the principle of non-refoulement that the applicant in proceedings on termination of subsidiary protection must have the possibility to state all the reasons for which subsidiary protection should not cease.

In the process of renewal of subsidiary protection all the guarantees provided by Article 18 of the Constitution (Prohibition of Torture) should be respected.

Legislation which limited the assessment of the competent authority in the subsidiary protection renewal procedure only to the grounds based on which an individual has been granted subsidiary protection, is inconsistent with the right set out in Article 18 of the Constitution.

Date of decision: 15-10-2015
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,Art 33,European Union Law,International Law,Council of Europe Instruments,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 19,EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,Recital (25),Article 2,Article 44,Article 45,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 3,Article 13,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011,Article 11,Article 16,Article 19
Poland - Judgement of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw from 1 October 2015 no IV SA/Wa 685/15 annulling the decision of the Refugee Board on refusing refugee status, subsidiary protection and tolerated stay permit.
Country of applicant: Ukraine
Keywords: Country of origin information, Internal protection, Relevant Facts, Internal armed conflict

The risk of persecutions should be assessed only on the basis of the current state of affairs or a prognosis of the situation in the foreseeable future, based on documented facts and not on general hypothesis regarding potential changes with no probability assessment. There is no doubt that in Ukraine there is a serious crisis, because of armed conflict in the part of the country, but for now there is no real risk that the conflict will cover the whole country.

The applicant is a member of a protestant church, while the dominating religion is orthodox. This circumstance should be duly taken into account when applying the internal protection alternative. The analysis whether the applicant’s fear of persecutions is well founded, should be based on updated information. The information was not updated since it came from April 2014 and the decision was taken in December 2014. The situation in Ukraine is dynamic so the appeal authority should complement the case files accordingly.

Date of decision: 01-10-2015
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011,Article 7,Article 8
Greece - Appeals Committee, 23 September 2015, 10738
Country of applicant: Burkina Faso
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Burden of proof, Credibility assessment, Humanitarian considerations, Personal interview, Subsidiary Protection, Well-founded fear

Whilst the Appeals Committee believes that the applicant was ‘wronged’ during the administrative procedures in the First and Second Degree (pursuant to Decree 113/2013), the Committee is unable to request a new personal interview, because no such provision exists within the national legislation (Regulation Service of Authority and Appeal 339/2013 opinion of the Legal Council).

Date of decision: 23-09-2015
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,Art 1A (2),European Union Law,International Law,Council of Europe Instruments,EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,Article 16,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 3,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011,Article 4,UN Convention against Torture,Art. 3
ECtHR – M. K. v France, Application No. 76100/13, 1 September 2015
Country of applicant: Algeria
Keywords: Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manifestly unfounded application, Non-refoulement, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Personal circumstances of applicant, Refugee sur place, Well-founded fear, Real risk

The obligations imposed by Article 3 ECHR do not prevent contracting states from taking into account the possibility of relocation. Where appropriate, contracting states can expect an applicant to relocate to another part of his country of origin in order to avoid persecution.

Date of decision: 01-09-2015
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,Art 1A (2),European Union Law,International Law,Council of Europe Instruments,EN - Returns Directive, Directive 2008/115/EC of 16 December 2008,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 3,Article 39,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011