Case summaries

The cases concerned two important issues: whether the processing of the refugee applications had been unlawfully accelerated or prioritised on the basis that the applicants were Nigerian, and whether the applicants were deprived of an effective remedy against the first instance determinations of the applications which was in compliance with Chapter V of the Procedures Directive. The Court found that Article 23(3) of the Procedures Directive permitted prioritisation/acceleration of any category of case and that the refugee appeals procedure in Ireland satisfied Article 39 of the Procedures Directive.

The Iranian applicants’ asylum claim was rejected by the authorities as they were not found credible. As a result of this finding, the authorities did not consider their account in light of the country of origin information on Iran. The court quashed the decision and granted refugee status to the family reasoning that the authorities are obliged to carry out a thorough and complete fact assessment.

It was found that the contradictions in the applicants' account were not relevant from the point of view of international protection. The court also ruled that the authority is obliged to clarify misunderstandings at hearings, at the same time applicants have to be given the opportunity to justify contradictions and incoherencies in their statements.

The Court must inquire into the circumstances which establish a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment fulfilling the requirements of subsidiary protection.

The applicant, being a young, single man and fit for work, is at no substantial individual risk, neither in his home province Parwan nor in Kabul. Therefore, it can remain undecided if the conflict in Afghanistan constitutes an internal armed conflict. 

The appellant mother (M) appealed against a Court of Appeal decision upholding a finding by an Asylum and Immigration Tribunal that her two children (aged 12 and 9), who were British citizens, could reasonably be expected to follow her when she was removed to Tanzania.

The CALL considered that the internal protection alternative rule limits access to international protection and found that, in order for the rule to be applied, it is up to the asylum authority to demonstrate (1) that there is a part of the country of origin where the applicant has no reason to fear persecution and runs no real risk of serious harm, and (2) that it could be reasonably expected of the applicant to stay in that part of the country (taking into account the general circumstances in the country and the personal circumstances of the applicant).

European Directive 115/2008 (the ‘Return Directive’) should be applied to the detention of asylum seekers – that is, with all the restrictions on the detention system, which is not to be used automatically but only in cases where there is considered to be a risk of absconding or a threat to society, and with an obligation to state the reasons for the detention – because otherwise there could be an unjustifiable disparity in the treatment of those who are to be returned (and who do not necessarily have to be detained) and asylum seekers who are already destined for return or expulsion (who should always be detained).

Requiring a political activist to live away from his home area in order to avoid persecution at the hands of his political opponents has never been considered a proper application of the internal relocation principle. Indeed, the pitfalls of requiring a person to act contrary to his normal behaviour in order to avoid persecution have been further emphasised by the Supreme Court in HJ (Iran) (see separate summary in this database).

Passive complicity in genocide includes a material element and an intentional element, as active complicity does.

This decision from the High National Court requested the Ministry of Interior to suspend the expulsion of Saharan citizens who lodged an appeal against the rejection of their asylum application. In the appeal, they submitted a precautionary (temporary) measure asking for the suspensive effect of the previous decision which would have resulted in their expulsion from Spanish territory.