Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Reset
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
Austria – Higher Administrative Court, 13.12.2018, Ra 2018/18/0533
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

The applicants’ personal circumstances and the general conditions in the country of origin have to be taken into account, when assessing whether an internal flight alternative exists. Relevant sources like the UNHCR guidelines have to be used.  Otherwise this constitutes a significant procedural error. 

Date of decision: 13-12-2018
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 3,Article 2,Article 3,Article 8
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
CJEU - C‑662/17, E.G. v Republika Slovenija
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

The CJEU ruled on whether an individual could appeal a decision which refused refugee status but granted subsidiary protection status, even if the rights and benefits afforded by each international protection status are identical in national law.

Date of decision: 18-10-2018
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 1,Article 10,Article 46,Art 46,Recital (8),Recital (9),Recital (39),Article 2,Article 3,Article 11,Article 12,Article 14,Article 16,Article 17,Article 19,Article 20,Article 21,Article 24
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
CJEU - C-652/16, Nigyar Rauf Kaza Ahmedbekova, Rauf Emin Ogla Ahmedbekov v Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite
Country of applicant: Azerbaijan

CJEU rules on the correct processing of applications for international protection lodged separately by family members and the interrelationship between them.

Date of decision: 04-10-2018
Relevant International and European Legislation: European Union Law,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 7,Article 18,Article 47,EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,Article 2,Article 7,Article 33,Article 40,Article 46,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011,Recital (14),Article 2,Article 3,Article 4,Article 10,Article 12,Article 13,Article 15,Article 18,Article 23,Article 31
France - Administrative Tribunal of Nantes, 24 September 2018, M., n°1808677.
Country of applicant: Somalia
The Dublin Regulation does not prevent France from being competent to examine the applicant's asylum application, given the existence of orders from the German authorities imposing an obligation to return to Somalia, where risk of inhuman treatment cannot be excluded.
 
Any decision must be reasoned and translated into a language understandable to the applicant. 


 

Date of decision: 24-09-2018
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,Article 4,Article 3,Article 4,Article 5,Article 17,Article 18,Article 20,Article 26,Article 27,Article 34,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011
CJEU - C-369/17, Shajin Ahmed v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

CJEU rules that Hungarian national law which defines ‘serious crime’ (in the context of exclusion from subsidiary protection) as a crime with a possible custodial of 5 years sentence as incompatible with the Qualification Directive. Instead, each crime must be looked at on an individual basis to ascertain its “seriousness”.  

Date of decision: 13-09-2018
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,Art 1F,European Union Law,International Law,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011,Recital (3),Recital (4),Recital (8),Recital (9),Recital (12),Recital (23),Recital (24),Recital (33),Recital (39),Article 2,Article 14,Article 17,Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010/C 83/01,Article 78