Case summaries
The provisions regarding the establishment and operation of Refugee Centres do not constitute a basis for ordering foreigners to stay in the said Centres, under penalty of having the asylum application procedure halted, on the sole ground that the police authorities consider their applications for asylum to be manifestly unfounded. The Refugee Centres were not established as centres where foreigners would be obliged to live – under penalty of halting the process of examining their applications for leave to remain – until the process had been completed, if those foreigners wish to and are able to stay elsewhere during the procedure, unless the Administration states that the measure is necessary for a specific and fully justified reason of public interest.
Persecution by non-State actors according to Section 60 (1) sentence 4 (c) of the Residence Act (similar to Art 6 (c) of the Qualification Directive) is not established if the group of actors is small and only consists of a limited number of private persons. In this case, the "dangerousness" of the persecution is not comparable to those cases where the persecution stems from the State or State-like actors according to Section 60 (1) sentence 4 (a) and (b) of the Residence Act (similar to Art. 6 (a) and (b) of the Qualification Directive) .
A family or an extended group of relatives do not constitute a "social group" in the context of refugee protection. A family is not clearly perceived as a definable group with its own "group" identity. Such a clear definition of a family or clan could only be established if membership of the family was considered of high importance and the family or clan had a distinct identity.
Within the meaning of the provisions of Article 2(1) and Article 3 para. 1, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of Presidential Decree 61/1999, for an appeal brought against an initial negative decision to be rejected for being out of time, there is no requirement for there to have been a prior judgment by the Committee formed under Article 3(5) which – as is clear from the regulations concerning its composition and operation – is responsible for considering the substantive conditions for recognising refugee status to a foreigner.
Refugee Appeals Board/ Commission des recours des réfugiés (CRR) (CRR) held that the Somali government (Federal Transitional Government), was at the time of the decision, unable to effectively exercise organised power within Somali territory and under these circumstances to provide protection to the members of the Reer Hamar clan; no other authority is able to provide protection to the members of this community.
Women who want to escape from a forced marriage, whose attitude is perceived by whole or part of the society of their country of origin as an infringement of the applicable customs and laws, and who therefore face a risk of persecution against which the authorities are unable or unwilling to provide protection, must be considered as members of a social group in the meaning of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention; when these conditions are not fulfilled, in particular when their behavior is not perceived as an infringement of the social order, these women nevertheless face the risk of suffering inhuman or degrading treatment and should therefore be granted subsidiary protection.
Rejection of an extradition request by Azerbaijan in a case where the wanted person had been recognised as a refugee by Germany. Azerbaijan's request for extradition because of acts contrary to common criminal law was a premise aimed at stifling the wanted person's political opposition to the extraditing country's government. Azerbaijan was requesting extradition for political reasons.
In the conditions which currently prevail in some rural areas in Eastern Turkey, the attitude of women of Kurdish origin who want to escape from a forced marriage is perceived by society and the authorities as an infringement of their customs, these women are therefore subjected to persecution committed with the assent of the population. Women who refuse forced marriage in these areas form a group whose members, by reasons of common characteristics which define them in the eyes of Turkish society, are likely to face persecution against which the authorities are unable to provide protection.
Having regard to the security situation which prevailed in the area of Chlef, the CRR did not consider that the Algerian authorities were, at the time, able to provide protection against the persecution inflicted by Islamic armed groups. Furthermore, given the impossibility of finding employment and the constant fear of being forcibly returned to this area, it was not reasonable to consider that Algiers constituted an internal protection alternative.
The judgment defined a particular social group as a group of persons that objectively share common characteristics or who at least are perceived to do so by society. This characteristic is often of an innate and unchangeable nature or is otherwise fundamental to human identity, conscience or to the exercise of those particular persons’ human rights. This characteristic cannot be constituted by the risk of persecution itself.
Belonging to a group of people without power or influence does not constitute a particular social group and therefore cannot be deemed a convention ground for persecution under the Refugee Convention.