Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Reset
Germany - Federal Administrative Court, 18 December 2008, 10 C 27.07
Country of applicant: Turkey

If a subsequent application is based on “post-flight reasons” created by the applicant, he has to provide good reasons why he has become politically active or has intensified his activities.

As a rule, “post-flight reasons” which have been created by the applicant following the termination of an asylum procedure are not relevant for granting refugee status. An exception to this rule may be given if the activities which the applicant engaged in since he left the country of origin constitute a continuation of convictions which have been practiced before. However, activities which fulfil these criteria are not by themselves sufficient to constitute an exception to the rule. In addition the applicant has to provide good reasons to explain why he has become politically active or has intensified his activities after an unsuccessful earlier asylum application.

Date of decision: 18-12-2008
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,Art 5,Art 1A,UNHCR Handbook,Art 5.2,Para 96,Art 33.1,Art 5.3,Art 20.6
Finland - Supreme Administrative Court, 12 Dec 2008, KHO:2008:88
Country of applicant: Sudan

The applicant’s refugee status was revoked due to a change in circumstances in the applicant’s country of origin as per section 107 subsection 5 of the Aliens’ Act, where the applicant’s individual need of protection was assessed in light of the notable and established social change in Sudan.

Date of decision: 12-12-2008
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,Art 11,Art 14,Art 1C (5),UNHCR Handbook
Sweden - Migration Court of Appeal, 21 November 2008, UM 1042-08
Country of applicant: Albania

Internal protection is considered available for women suffering domestic abuse and violence in Albania. 

Date of decision: 21-11-2008
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,Art 7.2,Art 8,Art 7,Art 10.1 (d),Art 15,Art 10,Art 4,Art 6,Art 9.2 (f),UNHCR Handbook,Para 91
Czech Republic - Supreme Administrative Court, 30 September 2008, S.N. v Ministry of Interior, 5 Azs 66/2008-70
Country of applicant: Kazakhstan

This case concerned an appeal against the refusal of international protection to an Imam from Kazakhstan who claimed persecution from state actors because of his religion. The Ministry of Interior (MOI) and the Regional Court considered that persecution had not been established, and that the behaviour of the authorities had not been motivated by the applicant’s religious belief of “pure Islam” (this is a term that is used to distinguish themselves from other Muslims). However, the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) disagreed and found that due to the specific circumstances of the applicant (an Imam) there was a risk of persecution. The Court also stated that refugee status can involve risk that is motivated by more than one reason, so long as one of those reasons is a persecution ground.

Date of decision: 30-09-2008
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,Art 1A (2),Art 2 (e),Art 4.3,Art 9,Art 4.4,Art 4.5,Art 33,Art 9.2 (b),Art 9.2 (c),UNHCR Handbook,Para 195,Para 200,Para 201,Para 202,Para 203,Para 204,Para 196,Para 197,Para 198,Para 199
Poland - Supreme Administrative Court of Poland, 8 May 2008, OSK 237/07
Country of applicant: Russia

Gender may be a feature defining a social group, so women can be a particular social group.

Violence, beating, and bullying constitute persecution, even if these acts are committed by the local community or individual members thereof.

It is vital to determine whether the applicant obtained help from the state when she requested it or whether there was a genuine (and not just theoretical) opportunity to seek protection.

Date of decision: 08-05-2008
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 1A (2),Art 7.2,Art 10.1 (d),Art 6 (c),Art 4.3 (a),Art 9.1,Art 7.1,Para 65,Art 9.2 (a),Article 10,Article 3
Belgium – Call for Alien Law Litigation, 18 February 2008, Nr. 7.398
Country of applicant: Nigeria
This case concerned an applicant who suffered from mental health issues. In its assessment of the possibility of internal relocation and protection, the CALL took into account the  applicant’s mental health. Further, with reference to the assessment of the applicant’s credibility, the CALL gave the applicant the benefit of the doubt in line with paragraph 197 of the UNHCR handbook.
Date of decision: 18-02-2008
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,Art 8,Art 4,UNHCR Handbook,Para 197
Sweden - Migration Court, 18 October 2007, UM 6696-07
Country of applicant: Iraq

There is not an internal armed conflict in Iraq. Also, the applicant has not shown that he is eligible for protection because of other severe conflict in the region.

Date of decision: 18-10-2007
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,Art 1A (2),Art 2,Art 15,Art 4,UNHCR Handbook,Para 44
Ireland - Supreme Court, 18 October 2007, A.N. v Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform [2007] IESC 44
Country of applicant: Nigeria

The Minister for Justice issued a mother and her 5 children with deportation orders as failed asylum seekers pursuant to section 3(2)(f) of the (Irish) Immigration Act 1999. The only application for asylum was in the mother’s name. The children had not been issued with refugee status determinations at all and were not mentioned in the decision.  The minor applicants challenged the deportation orders on the basis that their designation as failed asylum seekers was wrong in law. They had never made asylum applications. The High Court granted the applicants leave to seek judicial review but later refused the substantive relief of orders of certiorari quashing the deportation orders on the basis that the mother’s application had covered the children. The applicants appealed to the Supreme Court as the Court deemed the issue a point of law of exceptional public importance. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and made an order of certiorari quashing the children’s deportation orders, finding that there was no record of any decision refusing asylum applications on behalf of the children. The Court held that such a refusal was a fundamental prerequisite to the Minister’s power to make a deportation order under section 3(2)(f) of the Immigration Act 1999.  Finnegan J. also held that where an application by a parent of a minor is unsuccessful, the child is entitled to apply for asylum based on his own circumstances and that where a child’s parents are successful, the child should benefit by virtue of the principle of family unity. The principle of family unity operates for the benefit of the minor and not against him.

Date of decision: 18-10-2007
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 23,UNHCR Handbook,Art 6.4 (a),Art 6.4 (c),Art 23.4 (0),Para 184,Para 185,Para 213,Para 214,Para 215,Para 216,Para 217,Para 218
Germany - Administrative Court Köln, 12 October 2007, 18 K 6334/05.A
Country of applicant: Iraq

Currently every Sunnite and Shiite from Central and South Iraq is to be considered as a refugee within the meaning of Section 60 (1) Residence Act and the 1951 Refugee Convention, if he/she originates from a region with mixed denominations.

Returnees who originate from regions of mixed denominations cannot obtain internal protection in any part of Iraq.

Date of decision: 12-10-2007
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,Art 8,Art 4.3,Art 7,Art 9,Art 10.1 (d),Art 10,Art 4,Art 6,Art 4.4,Art 1A,UNHCR Handbook,Para 38,Para 37,Para 41,Para 42,Para 39,Para 40,Art 2 (c),Para 44,Para 43,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 3,Article 4,Article 5,Article 7,Article 8,Article 9,Article 11,Article 12,Article 15
Germany - High Administrative Court Nordrhein-Westfalen, 27 March 2007, 8 A 4728/05.A
Country of applicant: Turkey

Exclusion from refugee status on the grounds of serious non-political crimes is only permissible if the applicant still poses a threat. The Court found that an applicant from Turkey, who had been subject to past persecution, was not sufficiently safe from renewed persecution if returned.

Date of decision: 27-03-2007
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,Art 1F(c),Recital 3,Art 12.2,Art 12.3,UNHCR Handbook,Para 152,Para 147,Para 149,Para 163,Para 157,Para 148,Para 151,Art 35,Recital 15,Art 21.1,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 3