Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Reset
CJEU - C-57/09 and C-101/09 Bundesrepublik Deutschland v B and D

These joined cases concerned two Applicants who were denied protection in Germany on the basis of the exclusion provisions in the Qualification Directive.  Upon appeal the German Courts found that even if they were excluded under the Qualification Directive they may still entitled to the right of asylum recognised under Article 16A of the Grundgesetz. The CJEU, in examining Article 12, the exclusion provision in the Qualification Directive, found that the fact a person was a member of an organisation which is on the EU Common Position List 2001/931/CFSP due to its involvement in terrorist acts, does not automatically constitute a serious reason to exclude that person. Exclusion is not conditional on the person concerned representing a present danger to the host Member State or on an assessment of proportionality.

Date of decision: 09-11-2010
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 1,Art 2,Art 18,Art 12.2 (c),Art 3,Recital 6,Recital 3,Recital 9,Recital 10,Recital 17,Art 13,Art 14,Art 1A,Recital 22,Art 1F,Art 21,Art 33,Art 12.2 (b),UNHCR Handbook,Recital 16,Article 3
Sweden - Migration Court, 4 November 2010, UM 2675-10
Country of applicant: Nigeria, Senegal

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).

Date of decision: 04-11-2010
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,Art 1A (2),EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005,UNHCR Handbook,Para 106,Para 107,Art 25.2 (c)
Y.P. and L.P. v. France, No. 32476/06, 2 September 2010
Country of applicant: Belarus

Expulsion by France of two nationals of Belarus whose asylum claims had been rejected would amount to a violation of Article 3. 

Date of decision: 02-09-2010
Relevant International and European Legislation: UNHCR Handbook,Para 43,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 1,Article 2,Article 3,Article 6,Article 8,Article 13,Article 14,Recital (27),Article 4,Article 5,Article 9,Article 10
Belgium - Council for Alien Law Litigation, 24 June 2010, Nr. 45.396
Country of applicant: Kosovo
Referring to Belgian law and the provisions of the Qualification Directive, the Council for Alien Law Litigation (CALL) held in a General Assembly decision that the need for protection should be assessed against the country of nationality or against the country of former habitual residence (where the applicant is a stateless person or their nationality is unclear).
Date of decision: 24-06-2010
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,Art 2 (e),Art 2,Art 2 (k),UNHCR Handbook,Para 87,Para 89
Spain - High National Court, 19 May 2010, 632/2009
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

The case concerned an appeal before the High National Court against the decision of the Spanish Asylum and Refugee Office (Ministry of Interior) rejecting an application for refugee status based on the fact that the applicant entered the EU through Greece. Therefore, following the Dublin II Regulation, Greece would be the responsible country for examining the application for asylum. The High National Court stated that after passing the six month period established by Art 19.3 of the Regulation CE/343/2003 without executing the transfer of the applicant to a Member State considered responsible for the examination, Spain was the responsible country for the case.

Date of decision: 19-05-2010
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005,Art 26,UNHCR Handbook,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 18,EN - Dublin II Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003,Article 10,Article 13,Article 18,Article 19,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 3
UK - Supreme Court, 12 May 2010, ZN (Afghanistan) (FC) and Others (Appellants) v. Entry Clearance Officer (Karachi) (Respondent) and one other action, [2010] UKSC 21
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

This case concerned the application of the principle of family unity, where the sponsor had been granted asylum and subsequently acquired the nationality of the country of refuge.

Date of decision: 12-05-2010
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,Art 1A (2),EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005,Art 23,Art 11,Art 1F,UNHCR Handbook,Art 1C (3),Chapter VI,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 8
Ireland - High Court, 28 April 2010, M.Y.G. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform & Anor, [2010] IEHC 127
Country of applicant: China

This case concerned fair procedures, namely the right of an applicant to an oral hearing of his asylum appeal. The Court held that a fair appeal does not necessarily impute a right to be heard orally.

Date of decision: 28-04-2010
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 4.3 (a),Art 39,UNHCR Handbook,Para 195,Para 200,Para 201,Para 202,Para 196,Para 197,Para 198,Para 199,Art 4.5 (d)
Ireland - High Court, 25 February 2010, S.B.E. v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2010] IEHC 133
Country of applicant: Nigeria

The Court found that a simple finding that the applicant could relocate within Nigeria because the population of the country is so large was devoid of any substantiation by reference to the facts of the case or to the circumstances of the applicant and of his family or to the nature of the threat of persecution which relocation would serve to avoid.

The Court indicated that that a finding that internal relocation will provide protection involves a two- fold consideration:

(a) First, the identification - if only in general terms - of an area or place in the country of origin which can reasonably be expected to be free of the particular source of persecution from which the applicant requires protection; and

(b) Secondly, an inquiry sufficient to confirm that a relocation there is feasible and reasonable to expect of the applicant (even if it involves hardship) having regard to the personal circumstances of the applicant and of his family.

Date of decision: 25-02-2010
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,Art 8,UNHCR Handbook,Para 91
Germany - Federal Administrative Court, 16 February 2010, 10 C 7.09
Country of applicant: Russia, Russia (Chechnya)

This case concerns exclusion from refugee status due to the alleged participation of a civilian in war crimes. It was found that an act committed by a civilian can be a war crime if this act is connected to an armed conflict. In the course of an internal armed conflict, war crimes can be directed not only against the civilian population but also against combatants of the opposing party.

Date of decision: 16-02-2010
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,Art 4.4,Art 12.2,UNHCR Handbook,Para 155,Para 152
Sweden - Migration Court of Appeal, 22 December 2009, UM 1664-09
Country of applicant: Iraq

Academics are not a particular social group in the context of the refugee definition.

Date of decision: 22-12-2009
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,Art 2,Art 10.1 (d),Art 15,Art 10,Art 4,UNHCR Handbook,Para 177