Case summaries

This case concerned a decision of the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner to refuse to process the asylum applications of two nationals of Azerbaijan, with refugee status in Poland. The applicants claimed they were being watched by Azeri agents in Poland and felt unsafe there. The Court held that the applicants would have had to show that the Polish authorities were unwilling or unable to provide protection. In circumstances where they had not even reported their fears to the Polish authorities, the applications were bound to fail. The Minister had no jurisdiction to grant them refugee status pursuant to the provisions of section 17 (4) of the Refugee Act, 1996.

Art 17.4 of the Asylum Procedures Directive guarantees certain rights for minor applicants. This case confirmed that these rights should be known to those involved, so that the rights can be invoked before the court. Further it was confirmed that Art 3:2 of the General Administrative Law Act does not meet this requirement.

In this case the court considered the risk to a refugee of indirect refoulement from a third country. 

The Migration Board accepted the applicant and her children were in need of international protection as refugees in relation to Senegal but claimed that they could obtain protection in Nigeria (considered a safe third country). The Migration Court upheld the applicant’s appeal stating that once a case has been examined in substance in relation to a country of origin and protection needs ascertained it is not possible subsequently to refuse protection by referring to a safe third country. Cases concerning safe third countries must be dismissed in accordance with Art 25.2(c) of the Asylum Procedures Directive which is transposed into Swedish law by the Aliens Act (2005:716) Chapter 5 Section 1 (b).

This decision concerns an appeal lodged before the Supreme Court against the decision of the High National Court, confirming the Ministry of Interior’s decision to revoke the refugee status of the appellant and her children. This revocation was issued following the voluntary return of the applicant’s husband to Colombia, his country of origin.

The withdrawal of practical protection against deportation for subsequent applications is lawful and does not represent an infringement of the right to an effective remedy (Art 13 ECHR), if the legality of the withdrawal is examined by the Asylum Court.

The Applicant submitted applications for the assignment of a legal adviser and legal aid at the same time as his appeal. The Asylum Court rejected the appeal and the applications for the assignment of a legal adviser and legal aid as inadmissible. The Constitutional Court of Austria revoked this finding with reference to Art 15 Procedures Directive: the Asylum Court should not have been permitted to reject the applications for the assignment of a legal adviser and legal aid, but should have pronounced a judgment on the merits by means of a separate decision that could be challenged with a legal remedy.

The Ethiopian applicant was a victim of sexual violence and suffered from serious post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Her claim was rejected based on credibility concerns. The court ruled that the asylum authority failed to assess the facts of the case in a proper manner by applying inappropriate interview techniques and wrongly concluded that the applicant did not substantiate her well-founded fear of persecution.

In the event of an exclusion order, the Reception Conditions Directive (2003/9/EC) does not apply.

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.